April 2019
J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW
Tomorrow's Lawyer
Today?
Platform-Driven
LegalTech, Smart
Contracts & the
New World of Legal
Design
Marcelo Corrales, Mark Fenwick,
Helena Haapio, & Erik P.M.
Vermeulen
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, we have seen clear indications
of the disruptive changes ahead in the market for
legal services, which are currently driven by emerging
LegalTech start-ups. There are various broad catego-
ries of these LegalTech start-ups, including technol-
ogies assisting in the processing of data, IT support
Marcelo Corrales is an Attorney-at-Law specializing in
intellectual property, information technology, and corporate
law. Mark Fenwick is Professor of International Business
Law at the Faculty of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Helena Haapio is an Associate Professor of Business Law at the
University of Vaasa, Finland and a Contract Innovator at Lexpert
Ltd, Helsinki. Erik P.M. Vermeulen is a Professor of Business &
Financial Law at Tilburg University in The Netherlands, Senior Legal
Counsel at Signify (formerly known as Philips Lighting) and an
Innovation Advisor.
solutions, and substantive law solutions. In this paper,
we explore how LegalTech, in particular smart con-
tracts and the related field of Legal Design could
potentially develop as a new form of platform-based
business.1
The key argument of this piece is to highlight the
fast-evolving character of the legal profession in the
context of the digital revolution and to emphasize the
importance for all legal professionals of understanding
these developments. In particular, the presentation of
contracts and privacy policies has gained increased
attention among regulators, researchers, and prac-
titioners. In Europe, the General Data Protection
Regulation2 (GDPR)’s requirement of information
transparency and various other legislative require-
ments have contributed to the growth of interest
around these topics. Today, the problems of mandated
disclosures3 are well known and widely documented.
Less has been said and done about the solutions. Legal
Design seeks to address this “gap” and change things
for the better.
After this introduction, this article is structured as
follows: Section 2 briefly introduces the emerging plat-
form business model. Section 3 describes the shifting
role of lawyers in the context of the digital revolution.
Section 4 describes how LegalTech has assisted law-
yers in performing this role and how platform-based
LegalTech has the potential to disrupt the legal profes-
sion. Sections 5 and 6 examine in a little more detail
two key developments, namely smart contracts and the
emerging field of Legal Design. Section 7 concludes.
2 . T H E P L AT F O R M - B A S E D
BUSINESS MODEL
A major development in the global economy
over the last two decades has been the emergence
of businesses that organize and define themselves
as “platforms.”4 By platform, we refer to any orga-
nization that uses digital and other emerging tech-
nologies to create value by facilitating connections
between two or more groups of users. High-profile
examples of such companies are Amazon, Facebook,
or Uber. The type of connection facilitated by dif-
ferent platforms varies depending on the platform.
Some platforms facilitate connections between the
buyer and seller of goods (Amazon); some facilitate
connections between those wanting a service and
3
 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW April 2019
those willing to provide it (Uber); and others sim-
ply facilitate connections (information exchange)
between friends (Facebook). What is common to all
platforms, however, is that they make connections
between “creators” and “extractors” of value and the
platform generates a profit from making these con-
nections, either by taking a commission or through
advertising.5
A cursory look at any list of the world’s largest
companies illustrates the speed of this change. In the
2000s, none of the companies in the world were plat-
forms. Now, you could make the argument that over
half of the world’s ten largest companies are organized
as platforms or, at least, derive a significant slice of
their income from platform operations. The emer-
gence and growth of platforms is a significant event,
not least because such platforms have become a rou-
tinized feature of everyday life within such a short
period. To illustrate this rise, consider that it took the
radio 38 years to reach 50 million users. It took televi-
sion 13 years to achieve the same degree of market
penetration. Facebook, however, “only” needed two
years to gain the same number of users. Now, it has an
active user base of over 2 billion.6
The success of platforms has been made possible
by the development and proliferation of a number
of digital technologies—most obviously, PCs and
smartphones, the Internet, algorithms, and cloud
computing. The global reach of these technologies
encourages more users and other companies to join
a platform, adding more “content.” This makes the
platform more attractive to other content “creators”
and “consumers.” This is particularly important
because the success of a platform depends on “net-
work effects.” The more users that a platform has, the
more everyone benefits.7
In addition, the global proliferation of digi-
tal technologies and communication networks
means that platforms can be established anywhere.
The emergence of hugely successful platforms in
China (Alibaba) or Indonesia (GoJek) illustrates
the universal appeal of this business model. This
highlights an important point; namely how tran-
sitional economies might employ platforms to
“leap” directly into the digital age. At least, many
national governments, as well as international
organizations, seem to believe in this possibility.8
The adaptability of platforms makes them attrac-
tive in all sectors of the economy (and not just
4
tech companies).9 Also, the commercial success
makes them attractive to investors, as well as other
stakeholders.
The fast growth of platforms has compelled
incumbents to re-visit their business models.
Traditional retailers, for example, have been forced
to shifting their distribution channels for their
products from “stores” to online platforms. For
example, General Electric has attempted to trans-
form itself from an industrial manufacturer into a
data science company that utilizes platforms, soft-
ware, applications, and big data.10 Also, as new
Fintech firms are moving into the financial ser-
vices space, many banks are thinking about how to
add platform services to their operations.11 In fact,
every organization is now obliged to consider inte-
grating platform ideas and experience into their
operations.
3 . T H E “ L AW Y E R O F T H E
F U T U R E ” A S T R A N S AC T I O N
ENGINEER
Historically, lawyers have been at their most
useful when they have operated as “transaction engi-
neers” that enable new types of business or other eco-
nomic relationships. The development and growth of
Silicon Valley as a hub of digital technologies in the
early 1970s is often presented as an example of lawyers
performing such a role.12
Although the idea of the “clustering” of similar
businesses was a significant source of innovation, there
is a wide consensus that lawyers were also important
in the development of technology firms and facilitat-
ing innovation.13 For example, lawyers drafted the
contractual provisions that provided protection for
high-risk investors—i.e., angel investors and venture
capitalists—from the various risks associated with
investing in startup companies. Moreover, lawyers
were involved in a range of other activities, such as
deal making, matchmaking, and gatekeeping, in order
to help founders to start and scale their new busi-
nesses. Finally, various new contractual mechanisms
helped reduce information asymmetries between the
entrepreneurs and investors and, as such, were neces-
sary to bring the demand- and supply-side of venture
capital together in a way that was effective and advan-
tageous to both sides.14
April 2019 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW
In this way, we can see from the Silicon Valley
example how lawyers functioned as “transaction engi-
neers,” i.e., intermediaries that brought together in
a relative “safe” environment multiple parties with
quite different but compatible interests. The contri-
bution of local law firms helps explain, in part, the
success of Silicon Valley.15
The problem, however, is that lawyers often failed
to perform this function of being active transaction
engineers that add-value. Instead, lawyers became a
hindrance to such creative transactions. This happens
for many reasons, but the habit of lawyers to “proce-
duralize” solutions and to employ standard form “tem-
plates” is a significant factor.16
Lawyers have therefore developed a reputation as
one of the least trusted professions.17 The complaints
are familiar: lawyers are verbose, they don’t listen,
they are unresponsive, they charge too much, they
don’t care about clients, they spend too much time on
trivial issues, they don’t keep clients informed, they
constantly “over-lawyer,” and they don’t communi-
cate clearly and concisely.18
In the context of the digital revolution, lawyers
therefore need to focus on re-discovering their func-
tion as effective transaction engineers that can assist
parties in facilitating interactions and reducing costs.
In a modern business environment, there are many
costs that need to be cut: agency costs, transaction
costs, monitoring costs, regulatory costs, and com-
pliance costs. As such, the scope for lawyers to “add
value” is enormous.19
In contrast, one can sometimes hear the view that
the digital revolution may mean the end of lawyers.
Such views are overstated. Nevertheless, we do think
that if the lawyers of the future are to add value they
will need to operate as effective transaction engineers
and it is very clear that the legal profession is going to
need to adapt in various ways.20
First, lawyers of the future will need to be able to
assume the role of “project managers.” Lawyers will
need to become key participants in multidisciplinary
teams that are going to design the new solutions of
the future. A capacity to operate in a multidisci-
plinary environment will be vital, as the ability to
communicate with a more diverse set of “partners” is
increasingly required. In the digital world, this means
that lawyers will not only have to work closely with
traditional “partners” such as accountants or financial
service advisors, but also with engineers, designers,
architects, and other experts and specialists (depend-
ing on the particular transaction).21
In pursuing these new solutions, lawyers will be
confronted with a very different type of client. Fast-
growth technology companies with limited assets and
a small number of employees are central to this emerg-
ing digital world. The most successful companies have
used networked digital technologies to create new
business models. Trust and value are created through
platforms and networks, instead of by the manage-
ment of workers or assets. The lawyer of the future
will need to understand the opportunities and chal-
lenges and help firms to re-invent their governance
structures to be more open and inclusive.22
In this new model of legal services, law firms
will need to operate as dynamic and flexible legal
platforms with an emphasis on connecting legal
and other experts and managing the collaboration
and transactions. In this new world of platforms,
such “matchmaking” and project-based temporary
partnerships, will mean that lawyers and other legal
advisors will need to be aware of the way network
technology, and other code-based technologies oper-
ate. After all, many of the “solutions” that the law-
yer of the future will be expected to help design will
be technology based. The transactions that lawyers
will be facilitating will be dependent on computer
code. It is in this context that to facilitate lawyers in
performing this function, legal education will need
to undergo some important changes in order to pre-
pare prospective legal professionals to perform this
function.23
Most obviously, in the context of the digital
transformation, an understanding of code is going
to be crucial for the lawyer of the future to per-
form this transaction engineer function effectively.
More and more businesses and industries will
revolve around code-based products or services,
so facilitating ­transactions—i.e., being an active
transaction ­engineer—will inevitably involve cod-
ing to some degree. Such coding will require mul-
tidisciplinary teams working in collaboration and
the capacity of lawyers to actively participate in
such teams will be crucial to their success as legal
professionals. The development of Blockchain
technologies and smart contracts are particularly
relevant in this regard.24
In the following sections, we therefore examine
LegalTech, smart contracts, and Legal Design.
5
 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW April 2019
4 . L E G A LT E C H A N D T H E
DISRUPTION OF LEGAL
P R AC T I C E
LegalTech—also known as “Legal Technology,”
“Legal Informatics,” or “Law and IT”—is disrupting
the way lawyers practice law. It refers to the adoption
of innovative technology to improve legal services. In
other words, the hardware and software used in the
legal profession. LegalTech is therefore the response
to the exponential growth of new technologies which
is influencing directly the legal sector, known as one
of the most conservative markets.25
In the context of this article, we refer to
LegalTech as platforms, IT services, and software that
make law firms and lawyers more efficient in perform-
ing their legal activities. Practice management, docu-
ment storage, and automated billing and accounting
software are prominent examples of how technology
has affected such core tasks. LegalTech also plays an
increasingly important part in assisting legal profes-
sionals in the due diligence and discovery processes.26
At first, LegalTech made law firms and lawyers
more efficient in performing their traditional core
activities, such as automated billing, document stor-
age, practice management, or accounting software. In
the early 2010s, LegalTech became more advanced
and started to involve technologies that assisted legal
professionals in more sophisticated tasks, such as due
diligence or e-discovery. LegalTech has continued to
evolve. Multiple start-ups are now using emerging
technologies, and next-generation technologies are
already replacing some junior lawyers and disrupting
the existing parameters for the practice of law.27
Several types of LegalTech start-up can be identi-
fied. The first type includes start-up companies that
offer a range of online legal services, removing the
direct connection of legal consultation process and
guidance for clients.28 The second legal start-up type
involves online matching platforms that connect
lawyers with clients.29 Such platform start-ups help
consumers find an appropriate lawyer without the
involvement of a law firm. The third category entails
start-ups that use AI tools to perform time-consum-
ing and expensive legal research activities such as
reviewing, understanding, and evaluating contracts.30
Finally, start-ups specializing in blockchain technolo-
gies attempt to replace lawyers as intermediaries for
certain types of transactions.31
6
A key effect of these start-ups is the disruption
of existing legal practices, and this development has
broad implications for the legal profession. Current
legal services are less relevant and seem likely to be
overtaken by LegalTech providers.32 Junior legal pro-
fessionals and legal support staff are likely the first
effected by this development.33 LegalTech applica-
tions will soon be able to perform much of the work
of junior lawyers—e.g., document review—and with-
out the imperfect human qualities that can result in
mistakes and possible lawsuits.34 Second, the legal
profession will be forced to innovate as a result of
the expansion of LegalTech. Innovation is not a task
that is easily accomplished by legal institutions that
have entrenched operating procedures and have often
lost the capacity for pivoting in their operations.35
Nevertheless, the benefits and necessity of change
seems to make such a transformation of procedures
inevitable for most law firms, especially medium or
large firms operating in a business context.
LegalTech also creates the possibility of trans-
forming law firms and the legal departments of busi-
nesses into “virtual law firms.” A virtual law firm is a
platform with an emphasis on connecting legal and
other professionals in a collaborative online environ-
ment involving both human and machine actors. The
virtual law firm model attracts a broad spectrum of law
firms. One extreme is represented by the traditional
law firm characterized by a hierarchy with partners
at the top and varying levels of associates, paralegals,
and nonlawyers below them. On the other end of the
spectrum are those firms that adopt an Airbnb-type
platform organization, mainly providing a matchmak-
ing/coordination service. Enormous variations exist
between the two extremes, depending on the level of
implementation of Legal Tech.36
Some start-ups are already looking to develop as
platforms that add value by connecting lawyers and
clients. At the moment, the focus is primarily on
match-making but integrating AI or machine learning
is explicitly mentioned as a key near-future goal. For
instance, UpCounsel offers entrepreneurs on-demand
access to experienced lawyers.37 LawyerlinQ38 in the
Netherlands and Digitorney39 in Germany offer law
firms the possibility to “insource”40 special knowledge
and skills for more complex projects. Digitorney aims
to disrupt the traditional relationship between com-
panies and corporate law firms by providing a platform
or matchmaking function that connects companies
April 2019 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW
with the law firm that is best placed to meet a compa-
ny’s specific needs. As such, it helps companies over-
come the lack of transparency or comparability in the
legal market services, as well as the greater degree of
specialization in a business law context.41
Future technological advances—most obviously,
in the fields of machine or deep learning—will mean
that lawyers and other legal professionals are replaced
for many activities. Artificial intelligence tools help
clients to review, understand, and even draft legal
documents.42 Data analytics, machine learning, and
deep learning are not only used to do legal research
but also assist in legal decision making and the predic-
tion of legal cases.43 As such, there is no doubt that
in the near future LegalTech will “automate” a lot of
business work, such as document drafting and compli-
ance-related work.
5 . B L O C K C H A I N A N D S M A RT
C O N T R AC T S
In various ways, therefore, LegalTech is changing
the traditional role of legal professionals. Crucially,
law professionals play a key role in establishing trust in
business transactions. Most obviously, they negotiate,
draft, and interpret contracts and help enforce them.
Well-drafted contracts help to establish confidence in
the validity of the transaction and the economic ben-
efits of the deal for the contracting parties. Important
matters, such as the truth about ownership and con-
trol, the transfer of property, and the allocation of
risk and control, are typically covered in a contract.
However, such deal-making, matchmaking, gatekeep-
ing, and enforcing roles are increasingly performed
with the assistance of technology. Also, this trend
seems likely to accelerate soon, enabled by new tech-
nologies (such as Blockchain) and smart contracts.44
A smart contract can be defined as  computer
code that automatically executes all or parts of an
agreement and is stored on a Blockchain-based plat-
form. The concept of smart contracts dates back to
1994. It was originated and popularized by computer
scientist Nick Szabo. He suggested that many kinds of
contracts can be embedded in computer software and
hardware architecture. According to Szabo, a smart
contract is “a set of promises, specified in digital form
including protocols within which the parties perform
on these promises.”45 Szabo’s canonical example of a
smart contract in its earliest and most simple form is
the vending machine, which is designed to transfer
the ownership of a good (e.g., a can of soda) for the
exchange of money. The vending machine is in con-
trol of the property—by being physically sealed—thus
can enforce the “contract” that is called a “contract
with bearer,”46 since anyone with money can engage
in a transaction with the vendor.47
By extending the logic underlying mechanical
devices such as the vending machine, Szabo suggested
that the computer code could be used in place of
vending machines. This idea could be implemented to
negotiate more complex transactions, forging strate-
gic relationships, and coordinating transactions aris-
ing under diverse jurisdictions. Instead of transferring
the ownership of a can of soda, a smart contract could
transfer ownership of shares, real estate, intellectual
property rights, etc.48
Smart contracts are encoded in such a way that the
correct execution is guaranteed by the Blockchain.49
The Blockchain is essentially a distributed ledger that
can be configured to be accessible publicly or pri-
vately and the technology guarantees the transaction
history.50 This Blockchain-based smart contract tech-
nology allows the involved parties to transfer, receive,
and store value or information through a distributed
peer-to-peer computer network.51 Decisions are typi-
cally based on a majority vote while variations exist in
which accessors of information may have only partial
access to a selected subset of the data (permissioned
Blockchains).52
In other words, each transaction is distributed
across the entire network and is stored in a block only
when the rest of the network approves the validity of
the transaction. This process is based on past events
taking into account the previous block.53 Each block
holds a unique fingerprint built on cryptographic hash
code techniques similar to those used in the creation
of digital certificates and electronic signatures to
secure authentication.54 Furthermore, a transaction
history is maintained and can be accessed in order to
check the sequence of events up to this point in time.
To take a simple example, consider a smart con-
tract in the case of a car loan. If the borrower misses
a payment (tracked via a Blockchain-like technol-
ogy) then the contract/code would not allow the use
and operation of the car, i.e., the contract would be
“enforced” via networked technologies that disable
the car, rather than a “repo man.” Such contracts may
7
 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW April 2019
produce efficiency, timing, and performance improve-
ments as a result of the automation of the contract’s
terms. This automation is achieved by computer code
which controls the automated performance in the
context of an Internet of Things environment where
digital devices are interconnected.55
The advantages of smart contracts are clear. They
seem particularly well-suited to the following types of
transaction found in many contracts: (1) ensuring the
payment of funds upon certain objectively verifiable
triggering events and (2) imposing financial penal-
ties if certain objective triggering conditions are not
satisfied. In both these cases, computer code can eas-
ily represent the logic of the agreement in the form
of “If X occurs, then execute Y” statements. Human
intervention is not required once the smart contract
is operational, greatly reducing the execution and
enforcement costs of the contracting process.
Although smart contracts can be applied in dif-
ferent jurisdictions and industries, they are still in
developing phase. At present, the actual tasks that
smart contracts can perform are fairly basic and
straightforward, as seen in the car loan example.
However, since the adoption of more decentralized
Blockchain-based platforms and applications accel-
erate these days—along with their associated smart
contracts—they will become increasingly more
complex and capable of handling all kind of busi-
ness transactions.56 This means that we need a more
seamlessly integrated or interdisciplinary approach to
such contracts. Addressing the many challenges cre-
ated by smart contracts requires going beyond any one
disciplinary perspective or frame of reference. Legal
designers can bring a new perspective to smart con-
tracts, for example, by building powerful interfaces
using different kinds of design patterns.
6. LEGAL DESIGN AND DESIGN
PAT T E R N S
In many countries, the legislator requires online
traders to disclose various kinds of information to
platform users, especially in the context of consumer,
investor, and data protection. Traders and their advi-
sors have to take into account different requirements
in order to present information—mandatory disclo-
sures, terms and conditions, privacy, and cookie poli-
cies—to comply. Around the world, time and money
8
are being spent on preparing materials that legislators
expect to protect the weaker party. The result: plat-
form users and customers are overwhelmed with infor-
mation and choices they would rather not deal with.
When making comparisons or choices becomes hard,
people just click “Accept”—telling what is known as
“the biggest lie on the Internet.”57 Most people using
platforms or consuming Internet services just want
access to whatever they are looking for. As regards dis-
closures and terms, anything goes. If there is no room
for negotiation, why take the trouble of even reading?
This way of thinking is not just something care-
less consumers do. Traders, producers, and adver-
tisers often think the same way, too. They may be
experienced business people, but they are reluctant
to read contracts and legal information.58 Even if
they read, they may not understand. According to
research by the leading global Association in the
field, the International Association for Contract and
Commercial Management (IACCM), more than 9
out of 10 managers admit that they find contracts dif-
ficult to read or understand.59
Well-meaning legislators mandating information
obligations are currently not reaching their goal of
helping those they seek to protect. Platform traders,
producers, and advertisers have a hard time fulfilling
their information obligations and finding guidance on
how to do things right.60 This needs to change.
6.1 HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGN TO THE
RESCUE
For a long time, drafters of contracts and legal
information have focused on content and precision.
Their attention has been centered around compliance
and risk, rather than the needs of the people who are
expected to read and use the information they pro-
duce. Experience and research tell us that the people
who use contracts or legal information are not being
served well by their current design.61 Legal Design
seeks to change this.
Legal Design is an interdisciplinary approach
to apply human-centered design to prevent or solve
legal problems. It prioritizes the point of view of the
“users”: not only lawyers and judges, but also citizens,
consumers, business people—anyone. It builds on the
vision of a legal system that is more straightforward,
more engaging, and more user-friendly. This includes
April 2019 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW
how information is presented, how processes are set
up, and how policies have been established. The goal
is to improve how lawyers communicate, deliver ser-
vices, and make rules and policies—all with the aim
of enhancing the experience, comprehension, and
empowerment of the users.62
Contracts, too, can be “impenetrable, incompre-
hensible, confusing and downright boring.”63 Even if
smart contracts offer perfect performance, their look
and feel is not likely to improve the situation for
human readers. Contract Design applies design think-
ing in the context of contracts, aiming to make them
more useful and usable: the focus is on supporting
collaboration, driving desirable outcomes, creating
opportunities, and preventing problems before they
arise. Contract designers do more than drafting: they
look for a balance between functionality and preci-
sion, and between precision and ease of use. This
requires contracts and processes that make sense for
the people who work with those contracts, whether
those contracts are smart or “dumb.”64
Design thinking stresses the importance of visual
communication. Visualizing helps humans to think,
communicate, make assumptions visible, and secure
understanding across disciplines. The goal is not to
create images—the goal is to create understanding. In
the context of platforms and smart contracts, visual-
ization can help create functional, useful, and usable
processes, systems, and outcomes. It can help lawyers,
technologists, and business people see the big picture
and communicate and share solutions.
a. The Origins: Simplification and Visualization of
Legal Information
The first experiments with human-centered
design in the legal domain started around contracts
and legal information and their visual communica-
tion: presenting complex content so that it is easy to
translate into action. This is deeply rooted in the dis-
cipline of information design: organizing and displaying
information in a way that maximizes its clarity and
understandability.65
Even before Legal Design became a “thing,”66
early pioneers promoted better and simpler presenta-
tion of legal information with user-centered design,
simplification, and visualization. Several projects
have looked into the simplification of online Terms
& Conditions, end-user licenses, and privacy policies,
for example, through the use of icons.67
Visualization—here understood as adding graphs,
icons, tables, charts, and images to supplement text—
can help human readers in navigating complex infor-
mation, opening up its meaning, and reinforcing its
message. At the planning stage, visualization can
help identify the stakeholders’ goals and expectations,
align these, and capture them in a record. In contract-
ing, the parties are not only free to choose and agree
upon the contents of their contract, they are also free
to choose its form (except when the law requires a spe-
cial form, such as in the case of sale of real property).
As long as the arrangement and the parties’ intent to
commit (or not to commit, as the case may be at the
preliminary stages) are clear, the parties have a free-
dom to tailor their affairs and to design their contracts
the way they want, according to their own needs and
interests. If they want to, they can choose to deviate
from the traditional paradigm in which the contents
of contracts are expressed as text only.68 They can
choose to use code, a visual user-friendly interface, or
both for their contracts—something that is already
happening with the Creative Commons licenses, for
example.69
b. Collecting and Sharing Solutions that Work:
Legal Design Patterns
Prior research has revealed promising approaches
that can help make legal information more accessible
and understandable. A number of solutions already
exist, but they are scattered around and not always
easy to find or to apply.
Scholars in many parts of the world have felt
the need to improve, systematize, classify, and even
standardize the representation of legal information,
including visualization. They have suggested, for
example, diagramming transactions, a graphical user-
interface for legal texts, a visual interface for deal
making, and a layering approach along with icons and
a preview. 70 The varying labels used for the suggested
solutions show the need for a more unified approach.
Design patterns can provide such an approach and a
more universal language.
For architects, interaction designers, and software
engineers, design patterns and pattern libraries are a
common way to share reusable solutions to commonly
occurring problems.71 Borrowing tools from these pro-
fessions seems natural for our purposes. These tools
are particularly important in the context of platforms,
LegalTech, and smart contracts, where the choices
9
 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW April 2019
the builders and users make can have a huge impact
on both the processes and systems as well as their
outputs.72
Erik Gerding proposed in his 2013 Law Review
article73 that contract lawyers take a design pattern
approach and create a pattern language for contracts.
Later, several multi-professional teams of research-
ers have explored similar approaches and developed
prototypes of legal design pattern libraries, first for
contracts,74 and later for privacy and other commu-
nication.75 Related articles illustrate, with examples,
how design patterns can help solve recurring problems
and implement the principle of transparency in con-
sumer-facing communication.76
With the help of Legal Design, LegalTech solu-
tion builders can build better interfaces and output,
supplementing text or code with layers of explana-
tory diagrams, examples, plain language translations,
audio, or video. Merging LegalTech with Legal Design
helps switch between the different versions of the
same content and facilitates the making of “good”
disclosures and “good” contracts, whether smart or
otherwise. The goal: genuinely informed consumers
making good choices and “wise contracts”77—smart
contracts that work for people and machines: con-
tracts that are simple at the front, but smart—from a
legal and technological perspective—at the back.
7. CONCLUSION
The development of Blockchain-based decen-
tralized and distributed technologies—particularly
smart contracts—are poised to usher in significant
changes to the legal profession. Although smart con-
tracts are still in their early stages of development, the
next generation will enable more complex business
transactions. Therefore, future lawyers—seen more
as active “transaction engineers”—need to be able to
understand not only the technical issues involved in
the design of the computer code architecture, but also
the design of the interfaces between the involved par-
ties. Most importantly, smart contracts still need to be
tested with end-users and connected with events in
the real world.
This paper introduced the idea of Legal Design
to improve the state of the art and the understand-
ing of smart contracts as a possible way forward. Legal
Design and design patterns—reusable solutions to
10
recurring problems—offer themselves as enablers of
fruitful interdisciplinary dialogue between law, busi-
ness, design, technology, and behavioral sciences.
Design patterns are especially useful in organizing
and displaying information in a way that maximizes
its clarity and understandability. They can provide
a solid basis on which to implement the principle of
transparency in a genuinely user-centric, rather than a
merely legalistic manner. This approach is particularly
relevant in the context of LegalTech and smart con-
tracts, where the next generation of lawyers, software
developers, and legal designers can bring altogether a
new perspective on both the processes and systems as
well as their outputs.
N OT E S
1. Micha-Manuel Bues & Emilio Matthaei, LegalTech on the
Rise: Technology Changes Legal Work Behaviors, But Does Not
Replace its Profession, 90. In: Kai Jacob, Dier Schindler & Roger
Strathausen (eds) Liquid Legal: Transforming Legal into a Business
Savvy, Information Enabled and Performance Driven Industry
(Springer, 2017).
2. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural
persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC
(General Data Protection Regulation).
3. See, e.g., generally, Carl Schneider & Omri Ben-Shahar, The
Failure of Mandated Disclosure (John M. Olin Program in Law and
Economics Working Paper No. 517, 2010).
4. See, Geoffrey Parker, Marshall Van Alsyne & Shandgeet
Choudry, Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets are
Transforming the Economy and How to Make them Work for You
(W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2016); Alex Moazed & Nicholas
Johnson, Modern Monopolies: What it Takes to Dominate the Twenty
First Century Economy (St. Martin’s Press, 2016).
5. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, A Sustainable Platform
Economy & the Future of Corporate Governance, 2-3. European
Corporate Governance Institute Working Paper Series in Law.
(SSRN Working Paper No. 441/2019),
https://ecgi.global/sites/default/files/working_papers/documents/final-
fenwickvermeulen2.pdf, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
6. Id.
7. See, Paul Belleflamme & Martin Peitz, Platforms and Network
Effects, Handbook of Game Theory & Industrial Organization, 286-
317 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).
8. The World Bank, for example, organized a Disrupting
Development event on this theme in Bali in October 2018,
https://live.worldbank.org/disrupting-development, accessed Mar. 18,
2019.
9. For an overview, see, https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-
digital-platform-economy, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
10. See, https://www.ge.com/digital/iiot-platform, accessed Mar. 18,
2019.
11. See, Ernst & Young, A Vision for Platform Based Banking (2018),
https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-a-vision-for-
platform-based-banking/$File/ey-a-vision-for-platform-based-banking.
pdf, accessed Mar. 18, 2019; Imran Gulamhuseinwala, How Banks
April 2019 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW
Could Join the Platform Economy (2017) https://www.ge.com/
digital/iiot-platform; Ian Pollari, The Rise of Digital Platforms in
Financial Services (2018) https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/
kpmg/xx/pdf/2018/02/kpmg-rise-of-digital-platforms.pdf, accessed
Mar. 18, 2019.
12. See, Lawrence Friedman et al., Law, Lawyers and Legal Practice
in Silicon Valley, 64 (3) Indiana Law Review. 555–67 (1989);
Anupam Chander, How Law Made Silicon Valley, 63 (3) Emory
Law Rev. 639–94 (2014).
13. Id.
14. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, The Lawyer of the Future
as “Transaction Engineer”: Digital Technologies and Disruption
of the Legal Professiom, 253–73. In: Marcelo Corrales, Mark
Fenwick & Helena Haapio (eds), Legal Tech, Smart Contracts and
Blockchain (Springer, 2019).
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Felicity Nelson, Why Do People Hate Lawyers So Much?
(Lawyers Weekly, 2015), https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/
folklaw/16179-why-do-people-hate-lawyers, accessed Mar. 18, 2019;
Derek Thompson, The Least-Trusted Jobs in America: Congress
Members and Car Salespeople (The Atlantic, 2012), https://www.
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/the-least-trusted-jobs-in-
america-congress-members-and-car-salespeople/265843/, accessed
Mar. 18, 2019.
18. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Supra n.14 at 268.
19. Id. at 268–69.
20. Id. at 269.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 270.
24. Id. at 270.
25. Micha-Manuel Bues & Emilio Matthaei, Supra n.1 at 90.
26. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Supra n.14 at 255.
27. Id. See also, Richard Susskind, The End of Lawyers: Rethinking the
Nature of Legal Services (Oxford University Press, 2010).
28. See, Zoë Andreae, Legal Tech Start-Ups. (Medium, 2017), https://
medium.com/legal-tech/legal-tech-startups-9755b18f93ac, accessed
Mar. 18, 2019.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Erik P. M. Vermeulen, There is No Escape from Blockchain
and AI … Lawyers Better be Prepared! (Medium, 2017), https://
medium.com/@erikpmvermeulen/there-is-no-escape-from-blockchains-
and-artificial-intelligence-lawyers-better-be-prepared-2d7a8221c627,
accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
32. Steve Lohr, I, Robot, Esq.? Not Just Yet. New York Times. 19
March 2017, B7.
33. Erik P. M. Vermeulen (2017) The Future of Law, Lawyers and
Law Professors…and the Exponential Growth of Disruptive
Technology. (Medium, 2017), https://chatbotslife.com/the-
future-of-law-lawyers-and-law-professors-and-the-exponential-
growth-of-disruptive-technology-b5c979608c9c, accessed Mar.
18, 2019.
34. Id.
35. Erin Winick, Lawyer-Bots are Shaking Up Jobs (MIT Technology
Review, 2017), available at: https://www.technologyreview.
com/s/609556/lawyer-bots-are-shaking-up-jobs/, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
36. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Supra n.14 at 256.
37. Upcounsel: https://www.upcounsel.com, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
38. LawyerlinQ: https://about.lawyerlinq.com, accessed Mar.
18, 2019.
39. Digitorney: https://www.digitorney.com, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
40. “Insourcing,” in this context, refers to the practice of using an
organization’s own staff or other resources to accomplish a task
that was previously outsourced.
41. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Supra n.14 at 256.
42. For example, Beagle: https://www.beagle.ai, Legalzoom: https://
www.legalzoom.com, and Legal Robot: https://www.legalrobot.com/,
accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
43. Beverly Rich, How AI is Changing Contracts (Harvard Business
Review, 2018), https://hbr.org/2018/02/how-ai-is-changing-contracts,
accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
44. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Supra n.14 at 256.
45. Michèle Finck, Blockchain Regulation and Governance in Europe, 24
(Cambridge University Press, 2019).
46. Marcelo Corrales, Mark Fenwick & Helena Haapio, Digital
Technologies, Legal Design and the Future of Legal Profession,
5. In: Marcelo Corrales, Mark Fenwick & Helena Haapio, Legal
Tech, Smart Contracts and Blockchain (Springer 2019); Nick Szabo,
Contracts with Bearer (Satoshi Nakamoto Institute, 1997),
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/contracts-with-bearer/, accessed Mar.
18, 2019.
47. Nick Szabo, The Idea of Smart Contracts (1997), http://www.fon.
hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/CDROM/Literature/
LOTwinterschool2006/szabo.best.vwh.net/idea.html, accessed Mar.
18, 2019.
48. Marcelo Corrales, Mark Fenwick & Helena Haapio, Supra n.46
at 5; Josh Stark, How Close are Smart Contracts to Impacting
Real-World Law? (Coin Desk, 2016), https://www.coindesk.com/
blockchain-smarts-contracts-real-world-law, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
49. Nicolette Kost de Sevres, The Blockchain Revolution, Smart
Contracts and Financial Transactions (K6 Partners, 2016), https://
www.k6partners.com/single-post/2016/04/29/The-blockchain-
revolution-smart-contracts-and-financial-transactions-via-DLA-Piper,
accessed Mar. 18, 2019; Roger Wattenhofer, The Science of the
Blockchain, 88 (Inverted Forest Publishing, 2016).
50. Melanie Swan, Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy, 16, 1st.
edition, (O’Reilly, 2015).
51. See, e.g., generally, Vincenzo Morabito, Business Innovation
Through Blockchain: The B3 Perspective (Springer, 2017).
52. Koshik Raj, Foundations of Blockchain: The Pathway from
Cryptocurrencies and Decentralized Blockchain Applications, 16
(Packt Publishing, 2019).
53. Nicolette Kost de Sevres, Supra n.49.
54. William Mougayar, Understanding the Blockchain: We must
Be Prepared for the Blockchain’s Promise to Become a New
Development Environment (O’Reilly, 2015), https://www.oreilly.
com/ideas/understanding-the-blockchain, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
55. Mark Fenwick & Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Supra n.14 at 257.
56. See, e.g., Mayank Pratap, Everything You Need to Know About
Smart Contracts: A Beginners Guide, https://hackernoon.com/
everything-you-need-to-know-about-smart-contracts-a-beginners-
guide-c13cc138378a, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
57. Jonathan A. Obar & Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, The Biggest Lie on
the Internet: Ignoring the Privacy Policies and Terms of Service
Policies of Social Networking Services. In: TPRC 44: The 44th
Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet
Policy, 2016, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2757465, accessed Mar. 18,
2019) (also published online in Information, Communication &
Society, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486870).
58. For contracts, see, e.g., Scott J. Burnham, How to Read a
Contract. 45(1) Arizona Law Review. 133 (2003), http://ssrn.com/
abstract=1960126, accessed Mar. 18, 2019; for the reasons, see,
e.g., Helena Haapio, Next Generation Contracts: A Paradigm Shift,
49–52 (Lexpert Ltd., 2013)
11
 J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N E T L AW April 2019
59. IACCM, Commercial Excellence: Ten Pitfalls to Avoid in
Contracting, 6 (International Association for Contract and
Commercial Management, 2015).
60. See, e.g., Omri Ben-Shahar & Carl E. Schneider, More Than You
Wanted to Know; The Failure of Mandated Disclosure (Princeton
University Press, 2014). For a European perspective, see Ognyan
Seizov, Alexander J. Wulf & Joasia Luzac, The Transparent Trap:
A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Design of Transparent
Online Disclosures in the EU, 42(1) Journal of Consumer Policy
(2019) with references.
61. Legal Design Alliance (LeDA), https://www.legaldesignalliance.org,
accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
62. Id.
63. According to Tim Cummins, the CEO of the International
Association for Contract and Commercial Management
(IACCM): “These are a few of the words commonly associated
with contracts. Whether it is the way they are designed, or the
way they are worded, the overwhelming majority of contracts
merit those descriptions.” Tim Cummins. Can contracts really
change? IACCM/Commitment Matters Blog, March 2, 2016.
https://www2.iaccm.com/resources/?id=9147, accessed Mar. 18,
2019.
64. For “dumb” contracts, see Jeffrey M. Lipshaw, The Persistence
of ‘Dumb’ Contracts. Suffolk University Law School Research
Paper No. 18–11. June 25, 2018, last revised January 29,
2019 (Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 2019,
Forthcoming). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3202484, accessed Mar.
18, 2019.
65. See, e.g., Helena Haapio & Thomas D. Barton, Business-Friendly
Contracting: How Simplification and Visualization Can Help
Bring It to Practice. In: Kai Jacob, Dier Schindler & Roger
Strathausen (eds) Liquid Legal – Transforming Legal into a Business
Savvy, Information Enabled and Performance Driven Industry
(Springer International Publishing, 2017).
66. Margaret Hagan, Making Legal Design a Thing—and an Academic
Discipline. Legal Design and Innovation Blog, Dec. 14, 2018.
https://medium.com/legal-design-and-innovation/making-legal-design-
a-thing-and-an-academic-discipline-5a7e57fa43e8, accessed Mar. 18,
2019.
67. For a summary, see Pär Lannerö, Fighting the Biggest Lie on
the Internet: Common Terms Beta Proposal. April 30, 2013.
Metamatrix, Stockholm. http://commonterms.org/common-
terms_beta_proposal.pdf, accessed Mar. 18, 2019. See also Arianna
Rossi, Legal Design for the General Data Protection Regulation.
A Methodology for the Visualization and Communication of Legal
Concepts. Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna.
Dottorato di Ricerca in Law, Science and Technology, 30 Ciclo,
forthcoming.
68. Helena Haapio, Supra n.58 at 79.
69. See, Three “Layers” of Licenses at Creative Commons, About
the Licenses, http://creativecommons.org/licenses, accessed Mar. 18,
2019.
70. See, e.g., Kevin Conboy, Diagramming Transactions: Some
Modest Proposals and a Few Suggested Rules, 16 Transactions:
12
Tennessee Journal of Business Law. 92 (2014); Tobias Mahler,
A Graphical User-interface for Legal Texts? In: Dan Jerker
B. Svantesson & Stanley Greenstein (eds) Internationalisation
of Law in the Digital Information Society. Nordic Yearbook of
Law and Informatics 2010–2012 (Ex Tuto Publishing, 2013);
Daniela Plewe, A Visual Interface for Deal Making. In: Michael
J. O’Grady et al. (eds) Evolving Ambient Intelligence – AmI
2013 Workshops, Dublin, Ireland, December 3–5, 2013. Revised
Selected Papers, Communications in Computer and Information
Science Series, Vol. 413 (Springer International Publishing,
2013).
71. See, e.g., Christopher Alexander et al., A Pattern Language -
Towns, Buildings, Construction (Oxford University Press, 1977);
Jenifer Tidwell, Designing Interfaces, 2nd ed., (O’Reilly Media,
2014); and Robert Waller & Judy Delin, Towards a Pattern
Language Approach to Document Description. Simplification Center
Technical paper 4, April 2011, https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/
FILES/simplification/tech_paper_4.pdf, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
72. Marcelo Corrales, Mark Fenwick & Helena Haapio, Supra n.46 at
7.
73. Erik F. Gerding, Contract as Pattern Language, 88(4) Washington
Law Review (2013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2371097, accessed
Mar. 18, 2019.
74. Helena Haapio & Margaret Hagan, Design Patterns for Contracts.
In: Erich Schweighofer et al. (eds) Networks. Proceedings of
the 19th International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2016
(Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft OCG / books@ocg.at,
2016); Prototype Contract Design Pattern Library, http://www.
legaltechdesign.com/communication-design/legal-design-pattern-librar-
ies/contracts, accessed Mar. 18, 2019. For the recently launched
IACCM Contract Design Pattern Library, see, https://contract-
design.iaccm.com, accessed Mar. 18, 2019.
75. Helena Haapio et al., Legal Design Patterns for Privacy. In: Erich
Schweighofer et al. (eds) Data Protection / LegalTech. Proceedings
of the 21th International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2018
(Editions Weblaw, 2018); Prototype Privacy Design Pattern
Library, http://www.legaltechdesign.com/communication-design/legal-
design-pattern-libraries/privacy-design-pattern-library, accessed Mar.
18, 2019.
76. Arianna Rossi et al., Legal Design Patterns: Towards A New
Language for Legal Information Design. In: Erich Schweighofer,
Franz Kummer & Ahti Saarenpää (eds) Internet of Things.
Proceedings of the 22nd International Legal Informatics Symposium
IRIS 2019 (Editions Weblaw, 2019); Helena Haapio & Stefania
Passera, Contracts as Interfaces: Exploring Visual Representation
Patterns in Contract Design. In: Daniel Martin Katz, Michael
Bommarito & Ron Dolin (eds) Legal Informatics (Cambridge
University Press, forthcoming); and Rossi et al., When Design
Met Law: Design Patterns for Information Transparency. In: Droit
de la consommation – Consumentenrecht (DCCR) (forthcoming).
77. James Hazard & Helena Haapio, Wise Contracts: Smart Contracts
that Work for People and Machines. In: Erich Schweighofer et
al. (eds) Trends and Communities of Legal Informatics. Proceedings
of the 20th International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2017.
(Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft/books@ocg.at, 2017).
Copyright of Journal of Internet Law is the property of Aspen Publishers Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.