Decrypting the Ethical Implications of Blockchain Technology
Today, blockchain, distributed ledgers and smart contracts represent potentially transcendent technology that could revolutionize many industries.…
November 21, 2017 at 05:25 PM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Today, blockchain, distributed ledgers and smart contracts represent potentially transcendent technology that could revolutionize many industries. Attorneys are guardians of reason and wisdom; however, smart contracts and distributed ledgers are being created now by developers, often without any advice from attorneys. Is it wise or legal for developers to draft smart contracts without attorney oversight?
The answer is that it depends. Adopting a few common-sense measures when deploying blockchain and distributed ledger technology, will help interested parties avoid the executioner's ax. Justin Steffen, partner with Jenner & Block LLP, sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss why blockchain, distributed ledgers and smart contracts represent potentially transcendent technology that could revolutionize industries.
“Blockchain, distributed ledger technology, and smart contracts are exciting because they offer the benefits of security, transparency, immutability and efficiency,” he explained. “The combination of cryptography and the need to approve transactions through a consensus of network members makes it incredibly difficult to 'hack' the blockchain and change previous entries. Coupled with blockchain, smart contracts–digital, self-executing promises or if/then statements committed to code–can be used to increase efficiency and reduce costs.”
These benefits have led enterprises to explore using the technologies to facilitate securities trade clearing and settlement, supply chain and trade finance management and to automate the insurance claims payment process. Unlike physicians, attorneys do not have to take a Hippocratic Oath, but they are entrusted with advising clients so that they “do no harm” to their businesses, according to Steffen. Attorneys can help clients understand what they can do (legally) as well as whether they should pursue a certain course of action.
“As a litigator, I often witness first-hand the consequences of hastily drawn agreements and poor choices,” he said. “Sage legal advice, however, can prevent those legal molehills from turning into mountains.”
According to Steffen, simply put, developers are necessary, attorneys are not. Most attorneys are not experienced coders–and coding, not legal acumen, is the key to creating a smart contract. Not all smart contracts resemble traditional legal contracts–in fact, many do not. Still, smart contracts can represent the parties' entire agreement, they can alter parties' rights and responsibilities, and consulting an attorney before memorializing an agreement or a promise in a smart contract still may be advisable.
So is it wise or even legal for developers to draft smart contracts without attorney oversight? According to Steffen, that depends. The ABA rules restrict the unauthorized practice of law and various states have criminalized the unauthorized practice of law, as well.
“What constitutes the practice of law is murky, at best, and could depend largely on which state you are in,” he said. “Regardless, drafting a smart contract or determining which contract terms can be committed to self-executing code may require the exercise of legal judgment, in which case there is risk involved in drafting a smart contract without attorney involvement.”
As to the wisdom of disintermediating attorneys from the smart contract process, the more complicated the smart contract or the more that is at stake, the wiser it is to consult legal counsel. Attorneys can advise clients about potential legal consequences. Once a smart contract is drafted, it will execute automatically. Consequently, one should understand all the risks, including the legal ones, before finalizing a smart contract.
So what measures can those interested in deploying blockchain and distributed ledger technology undertake to avoid the executioner's ax?
First, per Steffen, hire a knowledgeable attorney–especially where an individual is interested in drafting a smart contract that resembles a more traditional legal agreement or which affects parties' rights and responsibilities, an attorney can help. Second, even if one prefers to hire a developer, nothing prevents them from also consulting an attorney. Outside developers can act as translators, turning a customer's desires into computer code. Finally, attorneys can help themselves and learn how to code. In the meantime, attorneys should be open to working with developers and CTOs.
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
Today, blockchain, distributed ledgers and smart contracts represent potentially transcendent technology that could revolutionize many industries. Attorneys are guardians of reason and wisdom; however, smart contracts and distributed ledgers are being created now by developers, often without any advice from attorneys. Is it wise or legal for developers to draft smart contracts without attorney oversight?
The answer is that it depends. Adopting a few common-sense measures when deploying blockchain and distributed ledger technology, will help interested parties avoid the executioner's ax. Justin Steffen, partner with
“Blockchain, distributed ledger technology, and smart contracts are exciting because they offer the benefits of security, transparency, immutability and efficiency,” he explained. “The combination of cryptography and the need to approve transactions through a consensus of network members makes it incredibly difficult to 'hack' the blockchain and change previous entries. Coupled with blockchain, smart contracts–digital, self-executing promises or if/then statements committed to code–can be used to increase efficiency and reduce costs.”
These benefits have led enterprises to explore using the technologies to facilitate securities trade clearing and settlement, supply chain and trade finance management and to automate the insurance claims payment process. Unlike physicians, attorneys do not have to take a Hippocratic Oath, but they are entrusted with advising clients so that they “do no harm” to their businesses, according to Steffen. Attorneys can help clients understand what they can do (legally) as well as whether they should pursue a certain course of action.
“As a litigator, I often witness first-hand the consequences of hastily drawn agreements and poor choices,” he said. “Sage legal advice, however, can prevent those legal molehills from turning into mountains.”
According to Steffen, simply put, developers are necessary, attorneys are not. Most attorneys are not experienced coders–and coding, not legal acumen, is the key to creating a smart contract. Not all smart contracts resemble traditional legal contracts–in fact, many do not. Still, smart contracts can represent the parties' entire agreement, they can alter parties' rights and responsibilities, and consulting an attorney before memorializing an agreement or a promise in a smart contract still may be advisable.
So is it wise or even legal for developers to draft smart contracts without attorney oversight? According to Steffen, that depends. The ABA rules restrict the unauthorized practice of law and various states have criminalized the unauthorized practice of law, as well.
“What constitutes the practice of law is murky, at best, and could depend largely on which state you are in,” he said. “Regardless, drafting a smart contract or determining which contract terms can be committed to self-executing code may require the exercise of legal judgment, in which case there is risk involved in drafting a smart contract without attorney involvement.”
As to the wisdom of disintermediating attorneys from the smart contract process, the more complicated the smart contract or the more that is at stake, the wiser it is to consult legal counsel. Attorneys can advise clients about potential legal consequences. Once a smart contract is drafted, it will execute automatically. Consequently, one should understand all the risks, including the legal ones, before finalizing a smart contract.
So what measures can those interested in deploying blockchain and distributed ledger technology undertake to avoid the executioner's ax?
First, per Steffen, hire a knowledgeable attorney–especially where an individual is interested in drafting a smart contract that resembles a more traditional legal agreement or which affects parties' rights and responsibilities, an attorney can help. Second, even if one prefers to hire a developer, nothing prevents them from also consulting an attorney. Outside developers can act as translators, turning a customer's desires into computer code. Finally, attorneys can help themselves and learn how to code. In the meantime, attorneys should be open to working with developers and CTOs.
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
2024 Ransomware Payments Poised to Shatter Record, as Gangs Target 'Big Game'
2 minute readCleared in HP Fraud Trial, British Tech Tycoon Mike Lynch Now Missing at Sea
FTC Probing Use of Browser Histories, Other Personal Info to Individualize Product Prices
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250