What lawyers’ response to the printing press tells us about the future of legal tech

By on

Future magic circle trainee Will Holmes looks at the legal profession’s somewhat rocky record with technology

Johannes Gutenberg, 1904 reconstruction — image credit Wikimedia Commons

In the latest instalment of a mini-series that provides a historical perspective to the legal quandaries of the present, future magic circle trainee Will Holmes takes a look at how lawyers have responded to technological innovations and questions whether the industry is ready for legal tech disruption.

For the German monk Johannes Trithemius, a world without scribes “would see faith weakened, love grown cold, hope confounded, justice lost, the law confused and the Gospel fallen into oblivion”.

The arguments against the printing press put forward in Trithemius’ 1492 work In Praise of Scribes were frequently voiced by lawyers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. At that point, it certainly didn’t look like the technological innovation of printing was going to have any immediate impact on the legal sector. Judges claimed “the [printed] books are against the law” and focused their criticisms on the system’s technical imperfections, complaining that misprints “many times confound the students!”.

Today, there is a similar sense of pessimism surrounding legal tech. The stories of the “revolutionary law firm” Clearspire and Silicon Valley-backed Atrium have demonstrated that it takes more than millions and big tech personalities to disrupt the legal sector. But whilst the lasting impact of modern technology on the legal sector still remains to be seen (and historical attempts to figure out why it happened are even further away), we do have the experience of the printing press, the invention that is perhaps yet to be dethroned from its title of being the most significant innovation in legal history.

Despite Trithemius’ claims, in the seventeenth century printing did eventually displace the slower and less accurate manuscript culture in the legal profession. Judges, who had earlier criticised it so fervently, later acknowledged that the innovation was now “the true and most sure register of the foundations and principles of our law”. But why did it take nearly 150 years since Caxton first brought over the first printing press to Westminster for print to become prevalent in English legal culture?

Secure your place: The Legal Cheek Summer 2021 Virtual Vacation Scheme

The slow proliferation of print can be attributed to a number of factors. First, the predominantly oral legal education established by the Inns of Court meant that it took some time for lawyers to fully realise the benefits of print. Second, the legal profession’s use of the French language, that was rare outside this context, meant that French legal texts had a limited audience and were less lucrative for entrepreneurial printers. As written education and English became more established in the legal profession, the scene was set for print to make its mark.

There was just one problem: the lawyers themselves. At the time, a lawyer’s value was his knowledge of the law rather than its application. As the sixteenth-century printer-lawyer John Rastell remarked, the law was “kept so secretly” that it functioned as “a trap and a net to bring the people to vexation and trouble”. Manuscript culture had served lawyers well in this regard. The Inns of Court exclusively controlled the circulation of manuscripts, centralising legal knowledge amongst a few practitioners who profited from its scarcity. It is only thanks to profit-seeking legal clerks, who spotted the opportunity to surreptitiously sell legal manuscripts to printers, that printing was able to escape from the lawyers’ stranglehold.

The steady leak of legal information reshaped the legal industry, democratising legal knowledge for the first time. This ultimately redefined the role of the lawyer, recentring the profession on interpreting the law for individuals who now had a better sense of their legal standing. This is particularly true for commercial law. Indeed, evidence suggests that areas of England with sizeable mercantile communities, rather than locations populated with lawyers, were the biggest buyers of legal texts.

An interesting reflection on the printing press comes from the lawyer-turned-priest John Donne. From his time in Lincoln’s Inn between 1616 and 1621, he came to this insightful conclusion: “it is an unjust thing in Controversies and Disputations, to press arguments out of Manuscripts, that cannot be seen by every man”. In other words, the common law had to be commonly accessible. Donne lamented that ideas about the importance of accessibility, which dated back to Thomist arguments made to lawyers perplexed by the growth of legal precedent in the twelfth century, had been neglected for centuries.

Just as the legal profession failed to pragmatically debate the effects of the printing press on justice, today, law’s traditions are deterring people from bringing cases. The Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) 2016 report revealed that around 70% of potential legal needs are unmet in the UK. Amongst the underlying reasons for this are concerns about “high and uncertain costs”. The uncertain price problem stems from the traditional billable hour system that is used by the majority of legal service providers. The longer a case lasts, the greater a lawyers’ earnings. This ironically, as the former magic circle lawyer Jim Diamond points out, incentivises the very inefficiencies that are damaging access to justice. Furthermore, the perceived “complexity and associated fear” of bringing a case was also cited by the CMA as a key factor in the high rate of unmet legal needs. Again, this favours lawyers whose expertise allows them to profit off a non-user-friendly judicial process.

In light of this, it is perhaps unsurprising that there is much talk of a “lawyer killer”. Projects, such as Kleros, Jur and Aragon can now resolve large volumes of small claims disputes that have been caused by the advent of the internet. In the UK, more affordable chatbot lawyers, such as DoNotPay, LawBot and LISA, have marked an improvement in the accessibility of certain legal services. Robot judges in Estonia and China’s Internet Courts are other headline-grabbing responses. Still yet to be proven is the prospect of decentralised governance in law firms which could create purpose-driven law firms out of nowhere. Lawyers across the globe could pool their resources and fill gaps in legal work that are being missed by the market.

In law, the buck always stops with the client. If technology can change their relationship with the law and legal services, then legal tech — in whatever shape or form — has arrived.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter


Alan Robertshaw

Another excellent article; I really enjoy reading these.

To follow on from your point about the law being accessible to the common folk…

Draco, the Greek bloke, gets a lot of stick for his supposed harsh laws. ‘Draconian’ and all that.

However, he didn’t actually come up with the laws*. His commission was just to set down in writing the existing laws. There had been growing discontent amongst the populace that only the elite actually knew what the law was meant to be, and this allowed them to bamboozle the lower classes.

His legislation however made it clear to all that the elite *did* hold all the cards and the common people had barely any rights at all.

That made him especially unpopular with the aristocracy as he was seen to have let the cat out of the bag and fomented dissent.

(*He may have gone for the most harsh interpretation of the unwritten laws; and he did bring in a lot of procedural reform.)


Milo Pup

Nice series; an enjoyable read. Insightful and fun.



An easy lawyer-killer – free and comprehensive public database of consolidated legislation. Otherwise only those with the best search engines win. Quite low hanging fruit.



I can help you there…

No fee.


Alan Robertshaw

I’m very much in favour of easy accessibility to the law, and procedure. And of course it’s a requirement under the ECHR. Which doesn’t seem to stop the Court Service messing around with the links to the CPR. A particular problem now it’s all e-bundles.

“In this application I rely on, er, 404 not found”

Of course having access to the materials is only half the story. You still need to know how courts work in practice. I guess it’s like the difference between having access to recipes against knowing how to cook.



Love these “past and present” articles. Always a fun read. Historical context is such an interesting way of looking at modern issues.



When I was a whipper snapper we had to pay our Pupil Master for the privilege of carrying their books and robes, fetching their tea and having them make toast on our glowing buttocks, having received a thrashing for not knowing the difference between mens rea and mens rear!

Those were the days, when you would be sent to the other end of the country for capital murder sentencing, ‘papers at Court’, consoling a terrified client before he was hauled off to spend three clear Sundays in the condemned cell before his appointment with Albert Pierrepoint, and all for a brief fee that was half the cost of the train fare.

Printing press? Computers? We would draft legal document by hand in those days, and if your calligraphy wasn’t up to scratch, the learned Judge would throw it in the fire and demand that you do it again, in triplicate, before washing his breeches.

Don’t know you’re born, you lot!


Law Student

Please do not cite China’s example in your article. You have inadvertently facilitated the Ministry of Truth’s effort to shield their fake “justice” with technological advance, etc.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories