[theonefrombrum]

We all know and use the internet on a regular basis. From watching videos on youtube to browsing through our fb, usually with a look, a lot of us and most of us on this site rely on the internet. With its myriad of uses, there's few people who don't use it and i'm wondering whether the amount of information available could one day render professionals such as solicitors and accountants as less important, if not unneccesary?

Google's power is that it has compiled a database of such vast human knowledge that all it takes is a few words typed into its search bar and any law related queries that you may have can be answered. Similarly, if a person was thinking about investing or needed to assess their money/tax situation, there's ways on the internet to do that, if they spend the time looking for it, without having to resort to hiring an actual accountant to do the job for them. I know that a lot of the appeal of solicitors/accountants etc is not just their knowledge but also the immediacy of that knowledge, whereas if someone wanted to find something out they'd have to spend some time doing so, but in a world where people obviously value their money and would be looking to save it if they could, do you think that one day people's reliance on professionals in certain fields will diminish as they become more adept at discerning which information on the internet has validity and therefore which information is the stuff that they're looking for?

[GR3YFOXXX]

I'm a lawyer training to be a tax accountant with one of the Big 4. Your premise fails on three fronts;

1. The 'facts' on the internet are usually provided by professionals i.e. people who are qualified in these areas. Therefore the facts on the internet can't replace the people who provide them. It's a logical absurdity.

2. The law and business practices are incredibly intricate, complex and constantly changing and rarely advice in legislation or online is situation specific. Therefore advice on the internet may be unsound, out of date or not practically applicable to any given scenario.

3. The reason why accountants and lawyers still exist is because laws and practical conventions are incredibly complicated. It takes someone trained in that profession to competently understand and apply what they are reading. Any idiot can pick up a piece of legislation and read it, it doesn't make them a lawyer.

The internet certainly does make my job easier, but not to the point where I even begin to feel obsolete. If anything it highlights how complicated even the most inane area of practice can be. It's like saying GPs will become obsolete because you can now google your symptoms and buy your medication.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
I'm a lawyer training to be a tax accountant with one of the Big 4. Your premise fails on three fronts;

1. The 'facts' on the internet are usually provided by professionals i.e. people who are qualified in these areas. Therefore the facts on the internet can't replace the people who provide them. It's a logical absurdity.

2. The law and business practices are incredibly intricate, complex and constantly changing and rarely advice in legislation or online is situation specific. Therefore advice on the internet may be unsound, out of date or not practically applicable to any given scenario.

3. The reason why accountants and lawyers still exist is because laws and practical conventions are incredibly complicated. It takes someone trained in that profession to competently understand and apply what they are reading. Any idiot can pick up a piece of legislation and read it, it doesn't make them a lawyer.

The internet certainly does make my job easier, but not to the point where I even begin to feel obsolete. If anything it highlights how complicated even the most inane area of practice can be. It's like saying GPs will become obsolete because you can now google your symptoms and buy your medication.

1. That's like saying that Pythagoras' contribution to Maths is only relevant and usable if you get the information from him, rather than learning it in a Maths book. The facts are the facts, online I can find out that someone's actions towards me were illegal based on X reason, why would I need to pay to hear someone tell me the exact same thing?

2. It may be and in that case consulting a lawyer or accountant would be a good idea. But in the cases where it's not or where a little bit of effort from an individual would bring about the information that they want, then I can see those people deciding to do it themselves and forgoing the opportunity to consult a professional. I'd say it's slightly analogous to someone deciding to do some DIY and decorate their homes instead of paying for a trained person to do it. The tools are available to anyone and if someone decided to do it themselves, all they'd have to do is put some time into learning how to do it and they could eventually do it by themselves, perhaps slower and to a slightly lesser standard but done by themselves.

3. I think you're underestimating people's general intelligence here and over estimating the degree of intelligence that someone will need to find out certain pieces of information that they will need. If I want to figure out the taxes I will pay on an investment, it is feasible that I could do it myself. The only difference between me and an accountant doing my taxes is that they'd immediately know how to do it while I'd have to have a constant tool of reference with me, which is hardly a grievance if I want to save some money.

Look Im not saying that these professions will become obsolete and that was perhaps the wrong word to use. But I genuinely believe that the Internet and its capabilities do and will continue to enable relatively intelligent people to find out what they need to know about certain things which they may have had to consult a lawyer/accountant about pre Internet era. I know you feel inclined to defend your future career path but I wasn't saying that the professions are useless, not at all. A prime example of what I am saying is a personal thing. I'm looking to start a business soon but have little clue as to how to go about the process. I downloaded James Caan's Business Secrets app and it's been incredibly useful for me, whereas pre internet/apps, I might have had to consult a business advisor to get the same information.

[GR3YFOXXX]

1. Your response is wrong, you compare static proven theorums with evolving legal traditions, business practices and taxation policies. Laws and accounting standards are dynamic, constantly changing in an effort ameliorate. Pythagorus' teachings remain unchanged whilst the economic and legal world continues to evolve in efforts to tackle failures. Lawyers write laws, lawyers interpret law, lawyers debate law. The need for lawyers and accountants stems from those differences that arise in interpretation.

2. Your response is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what lawyers and accountants actually do. No professional makes their money from advice that is simple and can be outlined in a quick snappy one paragraph answer. I could never respond to a client on a semi-complex issue without appropriately researching the topic. The vast majority of our work is so complicated it requires several hours of research, double checking, approval and drafting. Rarely do we know "the answer" off the top of our heads. I think you need to spend a bit of time researching what lawyers and accountants do from day to day. Comparing the use of a paint brush with interpreting complex legal instruments, plethora's of case law and mountains of text books, is a tad ill considered. Anyone can paint yes, and if you mess up, you can get in the car, go to B&Q, buy a new tin of paint and start all over again. If you get the law wrong you can end up in jail or with crippling fines, the same goes for statutory audits and taxes. Our clients arent "Joe the corner shop owner" but rather multi-million/billion pound companies. The issues are often so complex google would sh*t itself if you tried to type the issue into a search bar.

3. I suppose you should just have a job in the CJEU if you think that you can definitively establish the tax due on each type of investments, or the management of that investment. Thats why billions of pounds are spent every year debating some of the most complex tax cases within the European tax regime. Apparently you have the ability to accurately skim all of the EU legislation, domestic case law, double taxation treaties, IFRSs, IASs, international taxes and various custom duties that google wont tell you that you need to know.

You seriously underestimate what Lawyers and Accountants do to earn their money. I mean I spent three years studying for my LL.B, a calendar year on my LL.M, currently in a 3.5 year ACA training contract doing some of the most difficult professional exams out there (the last set only 65% of graduate level employed candidates passed), and even then I will only have a basic understanding of one area of taxation. But sure you could just google it. Go set up a company I'm sure you could dent the profits of the Big Four accountants, they have to be wasting some of that global combined revenue of £105billion, or better yet print off blue prints for a 747 from wikipedia and build a plane and give Boeing a run for their money, or you could set up a legal advice service with just you and a laptop, I'm sure you'll have Clifford Chance out of the market in no time. The reason why lawyers and accountants charge so much is because what we do takes a long time to learn and are seriously complex professions.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
1. Your response is wrong, you compare static proven theorums with evolving legal traditions, business practices and taxation policies. Laws and accounting standards are dynamic, constantly changing in an effort ameliorate. Pythagorus' teachings remain unchanged whilst the economic and legal world continues to evolve in efforts to tackle failures. Lawyers write laws, lawyers interpret law, lawyers debate law. The need for lawyers and accountants stems from those differences that arise in interpretation.

2. Your response is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what lawyers and accountants actually do. No professional makes their money from advice that is simple and can be outlined in a quick snappy one paragraph answer. I could never respond to a client on a semi-complex issue without appropriately researching the topic. The vast majority of our work is so complicated it requires several hours of research, double checking, approval and drafting. Rarely do we know "the answer" off the top of our heads. I think you need to spend a bit of time researching what lawyers and accountants do from day to day. Comparing the use of a paint brush with interpreting complex legal instruments, plethora's of case law and mountains of text books, is a tad ill considered. Anyone can paint yes, and if you mess up, you can get in the car, go to B&Q, buy a new tin of paint and start all over again. If you get the law wrong you can end up in jail or with crippling fines, the same goes for statutory audits and taxes. Our clients arent "Joe the corner shop owner" but rather multi-million/billion pound companies. The issues are often so complex google would sh*t itself if you tried to type the issue into a search bar.

3. I suppose you should just have a job in the CJEU if you think that you can definitively establish the tax due on each type of investments, or the management of that investment. Thats why billions of pounds are spent every year debating some of the most complex tax cases within the European tax regime. Apparently you have the ability to accurately skim all of the EU legislation, domestic case law, double taxation treaties, IFRSs, IASs, international taxes and various custom duties that google wont tell you that you need to know.

You seriously underestimate what Lawyers and Accountants do to earn their money. I mean I spent three years studying for my LL.B, a calendar year on my LL.M, currently in a 3.5 year ACA training contract doing some of the most difficult professional exams out there (the last set only 65% of graduate level employed candidates passed), and even then I will only have a basic understanding of one area of taxation. But sure you could just google it. Go set up a company I'm sure you could dent the profits of the Big Four accountants, they have to be wasting some of that global combined revenue of £105billion, or better yet print off blue prints for a 747 off wikipedia and build a plane and give Boeing a run for their money, or you could set up a legal advice service just you and a laptop you'll have Clifford Chance out of the market in no time. The reason why lawyers and accountants charge so much is because what we do takes a long time to learn and is seriously complex.

1. The changes in regulation and the finer points of certain laws could easily be updated on the internet so the information given is current and relevant to people and their specific situations. You're just completely wrong about what you claim the need for lawyers and accountants is; it has more to do with just solving a dispute and finding out whether someone was in the right or wrong as opposed to how different lawyers might interpret the law. You're thinking way too big time here, this thread was created with individuals in mind, not big businesses who can afford to be speculative and see what loopholes their well paid team can find.

2. I'm well aware of some of the things that lawyers and accountants do and I'm aware that on occasion a case will be so complex that hiring lawyer to do the work for you would probably be the best course of action to take. However, your inaccurate assumption about the extent of my knowledge of these professions is pointless as I've specified cases where immense complexity aren't present, such as figuring out how much tax someone will pay on an investment. I dont care what you say or how much you want to defend the profession, it would not be impossible for someone to ascertain methods online or in an app to calculate the figures that they need, if they really wanted to. All they'd need is a decent maths ability and they'd be ok. Oh and as I've mentioned, I was on about Joe the corner shop owner and that sort of person, the Internet poses little threat to big law firms, I'm well aware of that.

3. You're making it too complex and are making references to problems encountered by treasuries, not individuals and their bank accounts. Oh and you're thinking in the present tense as well, you should have even able to infer that I was talking about the internet's potential to have an impact, so that could be now or it could be in the future as it becomes more advanced and is utilised better for purposes just like the one that I'm talking about. No, admittedly there will always be a need for lawyers and accountants but to say that there aren't ways to find out necessary information even now without having to consult a lawyer or accountant is quite ignorant on your behalf, but of course you're going to have a natural bias towards criticising what ive said.

Consider that the Internet has had an impact on the publishing industry, has inevitably decreased sales of things like dictionaries and physical encyclopaedias, has probably had an impact on things like sales of calculators and has near enough single handedly brought about the near obsolescence of physical DVD stores with lovefilm and Netflix etc claiming people who previously went to blockbusters. Now while these things aren't similar to the professions I've spoke about, they do demonstrate that people will be willing to try a new alternative if they get what they need and it's more convenient. Perhaps right now the internet doesn't have the requisite resources to help people deal with all of their legal issues, but a pragmatic and serious approach to bringing this about is definitely possible and there's no doubt that it would be more financially convenient to do this instead of paying the often exorbitant frees charged by lawyers and accountants.

[GR3YFOXXX]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
1. The changes in regulation and the finer points of certain laws could easily be updated on the internet so the information given is current and relevant to people and their specific situations. You're just completely wrong about what you claim the need for lawyers and accountants is; it has more to do with just solving a dispute and finding out whether someone was in the right or wrong as opposed to how different lawyers might interpret the law. You're thinking way too big time here, this thread was created with individuals in mind, not big businesses who can afford to be speculative and see what loopholes their well paid team can find.

2. I'm well aware of some of the things that lawyers and accountants do and I'm aware that on occasion a case will be so complex that hiring lawyer to do the work for you would probably be the best course of action to take. However, your inaccurate assumption about the extent of my knowledge of these professions is pointless as I've specified cases where immense complexity aren't present, such as figuring out how much tax someone will pay on an investment. I dont care what you say or how much you want to defend the profession, it would not be impossible for someone to ascertain methods online or in an app to calculate the figures that they need, if they really wanted to. All they'd need is a decent maths ability and they'd be ok. Oh and as I've mentioned, I was on about Joe the corner shop owner and that sort of person, the Internet poses little threat to big law firms, I'm well aware of that.

3. You're making it too complex and are making references to problems encountered by treasuries, not individuals and their bank accounts. Oh and you're thinking in the present tense as well, you should have even able to infer that I was talking about the internet's potential to have an impact, so that could be now or it could be in the future as it becomes more advanced and is utilised better for purposes just like the one that I'm talking about. No, admittedly there will always be a need for lawyers and accountants but to say that there aren't ways to find out necessary information even now without having to consult a lawyer or accountant is quite ignorant on your behalf, but of course you're going to have a natural bias towards criticising what ive said.

Consider that the Internet has had an impact on the publishing industry, has inevitably decreased sales of things like dictionaries and physical encyclopaedias, has probably had an impact on things like sales of calculators and has near enough single handedly brought about the near obsolescence of physical DVD stores with lovefilm and Netflix etc claiming people who previously went to blockbusters. Now while these things aren't similar to the professions I've spoke about, they do demonstrate that people will be willing to try a new alternative if they get what they need and it's more convenient. Perhaps right now the internet doesn't have the requisite resources to help people deal with all of their legal issues, but a pragmatic and serious approach to bringing this about is definitely possible and there's no doubt that it would be more financially convenient to do this instead of paying the often exorbitant frees charged by lawyers and accountants.

I genuinely don't think you have a deep enough understanding about what you are talking about. Im trying not to sound insulting and sorry if I do. Have you ever done any work experience with a lawyer or an accountant? It's obvious that the internet is a revolutionary development and no one denies that. It has affected the way books are sold but not the demand for the work of authors, it has affected the way films are watched but not the demand for films. You presuppose that lawyers and accountants dole out mundane factoids that can be (1) found and (2) understood, that is genuinely not what we do. The law isn't a big book with a glossary, or even a selection of books, it's something much less defined, collated and even understood. People come to us because they have a significant problem or a serious issue. Various functions of Lawyers and Accountants are required by statute. Audits for example are legally required for limited complanies and PLCs, this function of an Accountant can never be replaced. This is where alot of accounting firms make the bulk of their money. You also seriously underestimate the complexity of the UK tax regime, I would love to see you attempt to complete a basic ATT or ACA Tax paper. Company CFOs are often Chartered Accountants yet they still require specialist tax advise on a regular basis. Companies often strive to cut costs, as do individuals and SMEs. They would not pay for our services if they did not need them. You dangerously oversimplify two of the most complex professions.

Furthermore when laws change its not simply the wording or numbering of regulations, there are significant paradigmatic shifts which occur on a fairly regular basis. Your understanding of the two professions and sectors is fundamentally misguided. As I have said before the internet certainly has changed how we as professionals do our job, but it has not altered why our job exists. Even with individuals the various legal and acounting issues are seriously complex, just look at probate, employment issues, personal tax, VAT for sole traders, National insurance contributions, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, criminal law, banking regulations, consumer protection etc. You seriously underestimate how intricate the work is.

If you had experience even dealing with these professions or an understanding of what they do, then I truely believe you would revise your hypothesis. Surely the internet has affected our professions, but as an additional complimentary mechanism more than an antagonistic competitor.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
I genuinely don't think you have a deep enough understanding about what you are talking about. Im trying not to sound insulting and sorry if I do. Have you ever done any work experience with a lawyer or an accountant? It's obvious that the internet is a revolutionary development and no one denies that. It has affected the way books are sold but not the demand for the work of authors, it has affected the way films are watched but not the demand for films. You presuppose that lawyers and accountants dole out mundane factoids that can be (1) found and (2) understood, that is genuinely not what we do. The law isn't a big book with a glossary, or even a selection of books, it's something much less defined, collated and even understood. People come to us because they have a significant problem or a serious issue. Various functions of Lawyers and Accountants are required by statute. Audits for example are legally required for limited complanies and PLCs, this function of an Accountant can never be replaced. This is where alot of accounting firms make the bulk of their money. You also seriously underestimate the complexity of the UK tax regime, I would love to see you attempt to complete a basic ATT or ACA Tax paper. Company CFOs are often Chartered Accountants yet they still require specialist tax advise on a regular basis. Companies often strive to cut costs, as do individuals and SMEs. They would not pay for our services if they did not need them. You dangerously oversimplify two of the most complex professions.

Furthermore when laws change its not simply the wording or numbering of regulations, there are significant paradigmatic shifts which occur on a fairly regular basis. Your understanding of the two professions and sectors is fundamentally misguided. As I have said before the internet certainly has changed how we as professionals do our job, but it has not altered why our job exists. Even with individuals the various legal and acounting issues are seriously complex, just look at probate, employment issues, personal tax, VAT for sole traders, National insurance contributions, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, criminal law, banking regulations, consumer protection etc. You seriously underestimate how intricate the work is.

If you had experience even dealing with these professions or an understanding of what they do, then I truely believe you would revise your hypothesis. Surely the internet has affected our professions, but as an additional complimentary mechanism more than an antagonistic competitor.

Again you are considering what I am saying to mean the internet's impact now as opposed to its potential, the key word in this whole debate. You talk about how films are still needed and of course that is true but you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. The reason that I mentioned the shifting paradigm in how people consume this content is to establish for the purposes of my argument the new medium that people have adopted, that's it. I'm not negating films or books in the process, I'm negating the former ways of consuming this content as being viable or what people are sticking to. Your point here seems to be falsely predicated on an assumption that I think that the law itself is irrelevant, when of course it isn't. I'm simply on about the medium in which the necessary information is given.

And no irony and have never thought that the legal and accounting professions are as simple as remembering facts and them regurgitating them to people for a fee. Of course that's not true and my argument wasn't based on this ridiculously simplistic viewpoint. In fact, my argument stems from the internet's potential, I e the possibility of it taking in some of the complexities inherent in the professions and reliably conveying this information to people. A database where specific cases cold be documented and then assessed to be similar to a person's individual situation, therefore allowing them to take a similar approach. For example, if someone is fired from their job at Debenhams because of X reason, then if they consulted this vast and continuously updated database, they could ascertain whether another case is similar to theirs and then find out the results of the claimant's case and take similar actions. Other methods to similarly do, if not replace some of the work that lawyers/accountants do could probably be utilised too, the internet's potential is still unknown but what we do know is that is continues to advance and take on roles which render previous, more expensive ways of doing those roles as redundant.

Again I would like to say that I am not talking about businesses and for a multi million pound business, hiring an accountant and a lawyer to help deal with any legal issues would be necessary. But I maintain that a true desire to help themselves facilitated by a strong effort to utilise the internet's still unknown potential could definitely have at least some impact on these professions.

Oh and please, any decent calculator and a piece of paper and any decently intelligent person could find out how much tax they are liable to pay, you are definitely overestimating how difficult it would be to do. Perhaps the only difficultly that might arise would be finding out what taxes need to be deducted and for what period in the first place, but it won't be a fatal barrier to some DIY taxes.

[GR3YFOXXX]

Potential is not the key word in the debate, Obsolete is.

This database you're imagining does exist, there's Westlaw, Lexis nexis, De Voil's, Tolleys. These have existed in paper form even long before the internet. They are extremely costly to subscribe to. Not to mention reading and understanding a judgement and then extracting the necessary principle can be extremely complex, especially if an individual is unfamiliar with legal terminology. You have basically described a database form of the common law and the principle of precedent in an overtly simplistic and inoperable lay man's terminology . This highlight how little you actually know about the legal system and how the practice of law hinges on the idiosyncracies of each case. In your example do you not think Debenhams would have consulted lawyers when establishing their disciplinary proceedures? Every employment tribunal/case hangs the factual merits at hand. No database will tell you what is right in your case or how to challenge an unfair dismissal or even how to attain appropriate compensation. For these reasons you need a lawyer or at the very least, sound legal advice.

Nowhere did I say you thought the law was irrelevant, rather your have a serious misunderstanding of how it evolves and operates. The complexity of the law is not derived from the medium the content is delivered in, rather the law in itself is complex. For this reason lawyers will never be obsolete.

Again I do not deny that the internet has had a very real effect, I simply disagree that either profession will become obsolete as a result.

Now your comment on tax is an absolute joke. Lets look at Johnny the shop owner. He will have to pay income tax on his sole trade (the shop), with allowable and disallowable business expenses. He will have to pay national insurance, income tax for his shop assistant, employers national insurance contributions, arrange PAYE for the employee, arrange employees NIC, charge appropriateVAT on his sales, deduct input VAT on his purchase (all of which may be different rates or disallowable), he will suffer insurance premium on his policies... I could go on. You clearly under estimate how complex our tax regime is, furthermore if he gets any of the above wrong there will be surcharges, penalties and interest. Not to mention that HMRC can bankrupt a company/individual who has not paid the right tax. My company will never do Johnny the shop owners tax computations or provide him with advice, the fees would not be high enough. But for many highstreet accountants this type of advice is their bread and butter. The fees are low and the costs to the client, of non-compliance, are massive.

DIY taxes are what you call self-assessment, and obviously these are for non-complex issues in the same way that many people choose to represent themselves in small claims court. The internet is obviously helpful here but I dont think it puts Accountants and Lawyers at risk of obsolesence.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
Potential is not the key word in the debate, Obsolete is.

This database you're imagining does exist, there's Westlaw, Lexis nexis, De Voil's, Tolleys. These have existed in paper form even long before the internet. They are extremely costly to subscribe to. Not to mention reading and understanding a judgement and then extracting the necessary principle can be extremely complex, especially if an individual is unfamiliar with legal terminology. You have basically described a database form of the common law and the principle of precedent in an overtly simplistic and inoperable lay man's terminology . This highlight how little you actually know about the legal system and how the practice of law hinges on the idiosyncracies of each case. In your example do you not think Debenhams would have consulted lawyers when establishing their disciplinary proceedures? Every employment tribunal/case hangs the factual merits at hand. No database will tell you what is right in your case or how to challenge an unfair dismissal or even how to attain appropriate compensation. For these reasons you need a lawyer or at the very least, sound legal advice.

Nowhere did I say you thought the law was irrelevant, rather your have a serious misunderstanding of how it evolves and operates. The complexity of the law is not derived from the medium the content is delivered in, rather the law in itself is complex. For this reason lawyers will never be obsolete.

Again I do not deny that the internet has had a very real effect, I simply disagree that either profession will become obsolete as a result.

Now your comment on tax is an absolute joke. Lets look at Johnny the shop owner. He will have to pay income tax on his sole trade (the shop), with allowable and disallowable business expenses. He will have to pay national insurance, income tax for his shop assistant, employers national insurance contributions, arrange PAYE for the employee, arrange employees NIC, charge appropriateVAT on his sales, deduct input VAT on his purchase (all of which may be different rates or disallowable), he will suffer insurance premium on his policies... I could go on. You clearly under estimate how complex our tax regime is, furthermore if he gets any of the above wrong there will be surcharges, penalties and interest. Not to mention that HMRC can bankrupt a company/individual who has not paid the right tax. My company will never do Johnny the shop owners tax computations or provide him with advice, the fees would not be high enough. But for many highstreet accountants this type of advice is their bread and butter. The fees are low and the costs to the client, of non-compliance, are massive.

DIY taxes are what you call self-assessment, and obviously these are for non-complex issues in the same way that many people choose to represent themselves in small claims court. The internet is obviously helpful here but I dont think it puts Accountants and Lawyers at risk of obsolesence.

I wish you'd read through all of my posts, as I stated clearly that obsolete wasn't the correct choice of word and I emphasised a decreased reliance on these professional and their services.

You're just not getting what I'm saying. Ok, this database exists and from the way you describe it its not very conducive to a serious attempt to help resolve one's dilemma. But I'm talking about the future and the invariable advancement of technology that comes with time and so while this database that you mention now might not be great, there's the possibility that a more advanced and user friendly one (perhaps created for commercial purposes?) could one day be realised on the Internet and this could pose a threat to certain purposes of the professions we've been speaking about. On the topic of the cases, in a world of 7 billion people and easy documentation of cases, I think that you'll rarely if ever find a case with even any idiosyncratic qualities. In fact, I would say that for the average individual, wholly unique cases are an anachronism present only in the days that Harper Lee was writing about the misadventures of racists in olden day Mississippi. Every case will have some element of similarity with another and I think that you'll find that there'll be few cases which are so different from any other as to render them as new and without complete precedent. I hate to say it but you seem grossly ignorant to the potential that the digital age offers and of course you are defending the career path which you've worked so hard at. I genuinely can't believe that you think that there's no way to surmise how to attain appropriate compensation without consulting a lawyer, perhaps it's difficult and even impossible for some cases today, but to say that the future won't be able to change that is a bit ridiculous.

I don't know if you're either intentionally patronising me or you just have an inability to make good inferences but just to let you know, I'm aware that the medium isn't what's important, it's the shifting in the paradigm of consumption which is what is key. Films take a long time to produce and are expensive to make, but I'm not suggesting that the medium is the key thing to consider when we talk out how physical rental stores have become practically obsolete whilst the Internet has taken their place, the important point is the more people friendly, cheap and new way to get the SAME thing and people's willingness to embrace it once the medium became viable.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong about the taxes thing. Are you seriously suggesting that finding out the relavant percentages, inputting the figures and coming up with a result will be that difficult? It might be time consuming but there's no way that it will be impossible for anyone without an accounting degree to figure out Johnny's payable taxes. I guarantee you that for someone of Johnny's stature and money status, I could figure out the taxes and amount he has to pay in a fairly short period of time. I mean people actually do do their own taxes on their small businesses so that fact alone tells you that consulting an accountant isn't a prerequisite to correct tax assessment.

Please just understand that I really don't think that these professions ever can and will become obsolete and I definitely don't think that they should. That was a bit of a silly word to use and I'll admit that. Having a trained profesisonal keeping records of your current assets, liabilities and all the intricate financial aspects of a business are of course invaluable and always will be. My argument is simply predicated on the internet, what it's proven that it can do and what it will do as its capabilities become better utilised by people who are conscientious of people's needs for cheaper alternatives and so provide detailed and excellent resources or business minded people who see a gap in the market for this kind of thing. If you're going to reply, all I ask is that you consider everything that I've said and reply to it fairly.

[ufo2012]

You have both went into great detail and I haven't read all of it.

However, far from completely eradicating professions, I think it is more a case that for example, in the case of professionals such as lawyers (since it was mentioned), maybe it will mean they will have to move more with the times and make more use of the internet rather than direct face to face contact.

[DonJuan]

Easy boys, get a room!

[Jack93o]

technology in general has the potential to threaten any profession

[cl_steele]

I doubt it although i would truly love to see someone cite google/wiki in a legal arguement

[Naarim]

I love how the rebuttals got bigger and bigger

My simple contribution - I think the internet is (and will be for the foreseeable future) a tool there to aid said professions, not make them obsolete.

[Awoodrow2]

Until we started commenting, I think this was one of the most respectable debates I've ever seen on TSR. Kudos to you, guys.

[GR3YFOXXX]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
I wish you'd read through all of my posts, as I stated clearly that obsolete wasn't the correct choice of word and I emphasised a decreased reliance on these professional and their services.

You're just not getting what I'm saying. Ok, this database exists and from the way you describe it its not very conducive to a serious attempt to help resolve one's dilemma. But I'm talking about the future and the invariable advancement of technology that comes with time and so while this database that you mention now might not be great, there's the possibility that a more advanced and user friendly one (perhaps created for commercial purposes?) could one day be realised on the Internet and this could pose a threat to certain purposes of the professions we've been speaking about. On the topic of the cases, in a world of 7 billion people and easy documentation of cases, I think that you'll rarely if ever find a case with even any idiosyncratic qualities. In fact, I would say that for the average individual, wholly unique cases are an anachronism present only in the days that Harper Lee was writing about the misadventures of racists in olden day Mississippi. Every case will have some element of similarity with another and I think that you'll find that there'll be few cases which are so different from any other as to render them as new and without complete precedent. I hate to say it but you seem grossly ignorant to the potential that the digital age offers and of course you are defending the career path which you've worked so hard at. I genuinely can't believe that you think that there's no way to surmise how to attain appropriate compensation without consulting a lawyer, perhaps it's difficult and even impossible for some cases today, but to say that the future won't be able to change that is a bit ridiculous.

I don't know if you're either intentionally patronising me or you just have an inability to make good inferences but just to let you know, I'm aware that the medium isn't what's important, it's the shifting in the paradigm of consumption which is what is key. Films take a long time to produce and are expensive to make, but I'm not suggesting that the medium is the key thing to consider when we talk out how physical rental stores have become practically obsolete whilst the Internet has taken their place, the important point is the more people friendly, cheap and new way to get the SAME thing and people's willingness to embrace it once the medium became viable.

I'm sorry but you're just wrong about the taxes thing. Are you seriously suggesting that finding out the relavant percentages, inputting the figures and coming up with a result will be that difficult? It might be time consuming but there's no way that it will be impossible for anyone without an accounting degree to figure out Johnny's payable taxes. I guarantee you that for someone of Johnny's stature and money status, I could figure out the taxes and amount he has to pay in a fairly short period of time. I mean people actually do do their own taxes on their small businesses so that fact alone tells you that consulting an accountant isn't a prerequisite to correct tax assessment.

Please just understand that I really don't think that these professions ever can and will become obsolete and I definitely don't think that they should. That was a bit of a silly word to use and I'll admit that. Having a trained profesisonal keeping records of your current assets, liabilities and all the intricate financial aspects of a business are of course invaluable and always will be. My argument is simply predicated on the internet, what it's proven that it can do and what it will do as its capabilities become better utilised by people who are conscientious of people's needs for cheaper alternatives and so provide detailed and excellent resources or business minded people who see a gap in the market for this kind of thing. If you're going to reply, all I ask is that you consider everything that I've said and reply to it fairly.

This is my last post on the topic as I feel we are recovering the same issues.

Agreed Obsolete was the wrong word. But I disagree that there will be a decreased reliance on these professions. In the past few years (post 2008 financial crisis) we have seen a re-regulatory agenda characterise the legal zeitgeist. For this reason, all areas of financial life, including basic consumer rights, willl become more rather than less complicated. As a consequence I believe we will see a greater reliance on accountants and lawyers. Look at Barniers recent report at the European level as an example.

I did not say the current databases were bad, they are extremely thorough, but they are aimed at practitioners. The costs of subscribing to these sources is often a barrier to DIY lawyers and accountants. They are also extremely technical and as such do not facilitate "dabbling" in the law, an extremely risky practice. Trends in legal development have been towards greater complexity and not simplification. This can be attributed to various factors, one being the emergence of supra-national legal authorities such as the EU, ICJ, ECJ etc. For this reason I feel that a laymans legal compendium is practically unworkable from a human perspective.

I don't think your video rental analogy accurately reflects the debate at hand and will therefore ignore it. Sorry If I appear condescending, but you are the one who has flagrantly criticised both of my professions. May I just ask what practical experience you have of Law or Accounting?

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on your assessment of taxation. I do agree that it does not take an accountant to complete a tax return, in the same way that you do not need a lawyer when you have no conflict with the law. Tax specialists are there for complex issues that affect everyone from the individual employee to the multi-billion pound business. Look at the current VAT case going through the CJEU on the VAT treatment of sausage roll (The case is Sub 1 if you're curious). Tax specialists deal with anomalous scenarios that affect every level of taxation. Again I question your experience with such matters.

I wholeheartedly agree that all professions will be greatly affected by the continued development of the internet. Again I do not think such development is antagonistic in nature. It is true that the internet will affect us all in ways as of yet unconsidered, but I geniunely believe that such as dispersal of information will contribute positively to regulatory amelioration. I do not, however, believe that in the near or forseeable future it will lead to any regulatory decline and for that reason Lawyers and Accountants will remain in demand.

I must say I have enjoyed the debate, and whilst I believe the OP's hypothesis was flawed, it was stimulating notheless. Apologies if I have appeared condescending at any stage.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
This is my last post on the topic as I feel we are recovering the same issues.

Agreed Obsolete was the wrong word. But I disagree that there will be a decreased reliance on these professions. In the past few years (post 2008 financial crisis) we have seen a re-regulatory agenda characterise the legal zeitgeist. For this reason, all areas of financial life, including basic consumer rights, willl become more rather than less complicated. As a consequence I believe we will see a greater reliance on accountants and lawyers. Look at Barniers recent report at the European level as an example.

I did not say the current databases were bad, they are extremely thorough, but they are aimed at practitioners. The costs of subscribing to these sources is often a barrier to DIY lawyers and accountants. They are also extremely technical and as such do not facilitate "dabbling" in the law, an extremely risky practice. Trends in legal development have been towards greater complexity and not simplification. This can be attributed to various factors, one being the emergence of supra-national legal authorities such as the EU, ICJ, ECJ etc. For this reason I feel that a laymans legal compendium is practically unworkable from a human perspective.

I don't think your video rental analogy accurately reflects the debate at hand and will therefore ignore it. Sorry If I appear condescending, but you are the one who has flagrantly criticised both of my professions. May I just ask what practical experience you have of Law or Accounting?

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on your assessment of taxation. I do agree that it does not take an accountant to complete a tax return, in the same way that you do not need a lawyer when you have no conflict with the law. Tax specialists are there for complex issues that affect everyone from the individual employee to the multi-billion pound business. Look at the current VAT case going through the CJEU on the VAT treatment of sausage roll (The case is Sub 1 if you're curious). Tax specialists deal with anomalous scenarios that affect every level of taxation. Again I question your experience with such matters.

I wholeheartedly agree that all professions will be greatly affected by the continued development of the internet. Again I do not think such development is antagonistic in nature. It is true that the internet will affect us all in ways as of yet unconsidered, but I geniunely believe that such as dispersal of information will contribute positively to regulatory amelioration. I do not, however, believe that in the near or forseeable future it will lead to any regulatory decline and for that reason Lawyers and Accountants will remain in demand.

I must say I have enjoyed the debate, and whilst I believe the OP's hypothesis was flawed, it was stimulating notheless. Apologies if I have appeared condescending at any stage.

I haven't criticised your professions, just like I wouldn't criticise the professions of manual labourers made redundant by technology. I'm criticising your belief that the status quo is incapable of shifting towards more consumer choice and a decreased reliance on human initiative and legal know how. Let me just state a small and very possible example of how one person might opt to go for technology once its advanced itself enough to be at least a somewhat viable alternative. Woman A has her car scratched by Woman B, who did so because Woman A had been blasting her music too loud during the night. Women C and D a while back had dealt with a similar situation and the result, as well as the details of the case, had been documented online in a user friendly, well marketed database which offers comprehensive knowledge on what steps to take. Woman A consults this database and sees what steps Woman C took to get the justice that she rightfully demanded. All she has to do then is follow these steps, facilitated by a completely user friendly and usable site and she's rendered the need for a lawyer in this particular case as none. Just tell me, why couldn't this happen and why would she need a lawyer in this situation?

I don't need to have had any practical experience of these of these professions to posit my argument and make a case for technology. All that is required is that I have a decent knowledge of what they do, which I do. You're basically insinuating that to comment on something, one must her firsthand experience it but if this were to be true then journalists and historians the world over have failed to adhere to your incorrect principle. If I'm talking about knife crime in the UK, do I need I have been stabbed to then be able to comment on it or am I still allowed to make a reasoned judgement in spite of my wound free self?

Ok I'm not denying that for the more complex and anomalous cases then tax accountants and the like should be on the agenda. But you're missing my fundamental point and it's a decreased reliance, however small or big it may be is irrelevant. At the moment, i know 2 people who run small businesses and both of them do their own taxes. Many small businesses dont however and it's either because they're unaware of the help non professional help which they can receive of because they've been taught that the true way is to hire somebody to do it. Based on the fact that some small businesses do their own taxes and some don't, we know that it's possible to do it. So what will narrow the chasm tht exists between the DIY types and those who don't? My argument is that it can only be the internet, advanced software and good awareness of this software. Yes, for the cases where the technicalities are large and the idiosyncrasies emergent, then of course trained professionals should be consulted with haste. But for those that aren't and don't require a thorough reading of 18th century statues and new EU regulations, then I expect a shift towards technology to occur.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree because while you think that the internet's impact will be contributory and positive, my awareness if capitalism's disregard for accepted conventions and it's almost callous nature of creating seismic shifts in industries is what convinces me that the Internet will be more antanogisic towards your professions than helpful. Journalism, film distribution and rental, retail, all these industries have felt the antagonistic claws of the internet's ever elongating hand and to say that the law and accounting professions are immune to this perpetual assault on industry norms is to in my opinion defend that which you obviously have a vested interest in defending and I understand that.

[GR3YFOXXX]

I wasn't going to respond to your most recent post, however some of the errors of understanding are startling. The examples you have utilised have seriously undermined the credibility of your understanding. The examples of Historians, Journalists and knife crime are nonsensical. You mistake practical experience, with first hand experience. Any evidence of research or a basic understanding of legal theory would have sufficed. This is a diaphanous example of reductio ad absurdum. But this is not the example I take greatest issue to.

The example of the woman scratching the car shows a clear lack of awareness of the most simple dichotymy in the common law, that of the criminal/civil divide. Never in the above scenario would the victim be expected to retain a lawyer. Supposing the victim had the requisite evidence, she would contact the police and they would handle prosecution. Never would Joe public be expected (or allowed) to step into the shoes of the CPS. The principle of Stare Decisis would ensure that fair treatment under the law would be applied in each case (subject to the facts).

The above highlights a gross misunderstanding, on your part, of the basic operation of the law and as such undermines your ability to accurately understand my position.

[theonefrombrum]

(Original post by GR3YFOXXX)
I wasn't going to respond to your most recent post, however some of the errors of understanding are startling. The examples you have utilised have seriously undermined the credibility of your understanding. The examples of Historians, Journalists and knife crime are nonsensical. You mistake practical experience, with first hand experience. Any evidence of research or a basic understanding of legal theory would have sufficed. This is a diaphanous example of reductio ad absurdum. But this is not the example I take greatest issue to.

The example of the woman scratching the car shows a clear lack of awareness of the most simple dichotymy in the common law, that of the criminal/civil divide. Never in the above scenario would the victim be expected to retain a lawyer. Supposing the victim had the requisite evidence, she would contact the police and they would handle prosecution. Never would Joe public be expected (or allowed) to step into the shoes of the CPS. The principle of Stare Decisis would ensure that fair treatment under the law would be applied in each case (subject to the facts).

The above highlights a gross misunderstanding, on your part, of the basic operation of the law and as such undermines your ability to accurately understand my position.

I think it's time that you trangsressed your inability to discern basic facts from sentences which don't state them outright. I was citing those examples to point out that practical experience, which YOU mentioned, wasn't a prerequisite to an outsider's opinion and commentary being spoken and from that you should, given your career path and its rigorous demands on intelligence, have been able to infer that I was making the point that you don't need to have had practical experience of something to be able to comment on it and put forth an opinion. Often, a decent amount of knowledge and even a basic understanding of the principle sinherent within something suffice to legitimise a person's argument,or right to make one.
Oh and please stop using words stuck firmly in the esoterica of law books and the minds of those who have pored over them, it does you no favours and it certainly doesn't make you sound smarter, if that was your intention. I think it's quite hypocritical of you to want to make a point, accuse me of lacking any knowledge of the law profession and then use phrases that will proliferate only in the law profession and no where else.

It seems like an absurd question but you do know the difference between a lawyer and a solicitor don't you? Because simply, you're wrong. My auntie's best mate hired a solicitor because of a similar situation to the hypothetical one that I posited and that's all I have to say in response really. And I'm sorry but you seem to be going off on a tangent here, why are you randomly mentioning fair justice and the CPS? That's what nonsensical in this debate, not anything that I've said.

Look your position is unambiguously flawed. You accept that the internet and technology have impacted pretty much every part of our lives and yet you point blank refuse to admit that even the slightest decrease in reliance on legal professionals could occur once the internet's still dormant capabilities are explored. All you've done is talk about complexity, a lack of practical experience and you've been about as specific as what comes out of the mouth of a vague person and based on these facts, I can't see how I can continue debating with you.

[GR3YFOXXX]

(Original post by theonefrombrum)
I think it's time that you trangsressed your inability to discern basic facts from sentences which don't state them outright. I was citing those examples to point out that practical experience, which YOU mentioned, wasn't a prerequisite to an outsider's opinion and commentary being spoken and from that you should, given your career path and its rigorous demands on intelligence, have been able to infer that I was making the point that you don't need to have had practical experience of something to be able to comment on it and put forth an opinion. Often, a decent amount of knowledge and even a basic understanding of the principle sinherent within something suffice to legitimise a person's argument,or right to make one.
Oh and please stop using words stuck firmly in the esoterica of law books and the minds of those who have pored over them, it does you no favours and it certainly doesn't make you sound smarter, if that was your intention. I think it's quite hypocritical of you to want to make a point, accuse me of lacking any knowledge of the law profession and then use phrases that will proliferate only in the law profession and no where else.

It seems like an absurd question but you do know the difference between a lawyer and a solicitor don't you? Because simply, you're wrong. My auntie's best mate hired a solicitor because of a similar situation to the hypothetical one that I posited and that's all I have to say in response really. And I'm sorry but you seem to be going off on a tangent here, why are you randomly mentioning fair justice and the CPS? That's what nonsensical in this debate, not anything that I've said.

Look your position is unambiguously flawed. You accept that the internet and technology have impacted pretty much every part of our lives and yet you point blank refuse to admit that even the slightest decrease in reliance on legal professionals could occur once the internet's still dormant capabilities are explored. All you've done is talk about complexity, a lack of practical experience and you've been about as specific as what comes out of the mouth of a vague person and based on these facts, I can't see how I can continue debating with you.

I genuinely cannot identify a single coherent point in the above post...

I certainly like to think I know what a solicitor is, considering most of my friends from Uni are now qualified or qualifying...

As to your "Aunt's best mate", it appears she pursued a civil claim following a charge of criminal damage, in any case a solicitor would not be required in either instance. Think "Law and Order" followed by "Judge Judy"...(sic)