Technology has led to changes in many fields in the recent past. The fast development of technology has not spared the legal field. The emergence of discovery 3.0 software and technologies means that legal firms and lawyers have to make a decision on whether to implement them or not ( Haydock, & Herr, 2016) . The legal field cannot fail to adopt the discovery 3.0 technology due to the many benefits that come from you. Research shows that most of the companies rushed in implementing Discovery 2.0 technology when it emerged. This has been severely dented by the emergence of the higher discovery 3.0 technologies that look more likely to benefit smaller companies. This paper looks at how discovery 3.0 technologies will affect or cause changes in the legal field.
Reasonably, companies must adopt discovery 3.0 because of the rise in the millennial generation that has recently surpassed the baby boomers. The consumers in this group trends in technology and are like to search and check their preferred law firm. They also place less value on the face-to-face interaction as they tend to embrace the use of technology where they can ( Haydock, & Herr, 2016) . The other reason for the adoption of discovery 3.0 technology by companies operating in the legal field is that most of the clients today value access and feedback. Ideally, most millennials place more value on self-service. They also expect to receive regular feedback, which they can only get from the implementation of technology ( Sheppard, 2018) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Evidently, the effect of discovery 3.0 in the legal field revolves around the use of virtual and augmented reality technology that has many applications in the legal field. Judges, jurors, lawyers, as well as, witnesses have the potential to participate in a trial through the use of virtual reality and still have the same feeling of being in a courtroom. In particular, jurors can have the opportunity to deliberate with one another the same way that they do in an actual courtroom ( Cohen, Lender, & Kalbaugh, 2016) . In the recent past, the legal system has seen a change where information obtained with the use of sensory technology has been accommodated as meeting the standard rules of evidence. Therefore, the legal field will not have any problem with the adoption of any changes that might be brought by the use of discovery 3.0. The challenge will encounter those who will fail in adopting the emerging technology ( Haydock, & Herr, 2016) .
Subsequently, artificial intelligence has been adopted in electronic discovery to replace the work product from the practicing lawyers while also improving the experience of law practice ( Bird, 2016) . For example, the use of predictive coding has emerged as one of the new things in e-discovery. It is the process of having a machine learn from any elements of human behavior and then offer an application of what it learns ( Kerikmäe, Hoffmann, & Chochia, 2018) . Many companies have used this technology and its use in the legal field is inevitable. Today, law firms can apply the use of artificial intelligence in conducting data management in situations where there are many types to be handled (Breuker, 2009 ) .
The next few years will see many changes in technologies that can have an impact on the legal system. It is based on the increase in the available computing power that has been doubled by the emergence of discovery 3.0. In fact, it has an impact on current technologies such as document automation, the development of decisions engines, communication tools, and e-discovery tools ( Bird, 2016) . The result has been an enhancement of the legal research tools and the maturity of the legal expert systems. Currently, many online tools are available for attorneys. Some of these tools include feature-rich applications that make work easier for attorneys ( Cohen, Lender, & Kalbaugh, 2016) .
The fast adoption of discovery 2.0 technologies by big law firms at a high cost creates a major disadvantage for such companies concerning the use of discovery 3.0. Ideally, the companies have not yet recovered the cost incurred in implementing discovery three ( Bird, 2016) . Therefore, the technology trends allow the small law firms or solo attorneys to aces information less expensively as compared to the big companies. For example, solo attorneys not only have access to wide range of data but can also create and join communities of attorneys while also collaborating with the attorneys in a similar way to what happens in a large firm. This enables the attorneys to be able to compete effectively with the larger firms (Breuker, 2009).
However, discovery 3.0 may have a negative impact on law firms. In essence, the increased influx of non-lawyer service providers who make an entry into the legal market based on the effectiveness of the available technology ( Cohen, Lender, & Kalbaugh, 2016) . Some of these companies are consumer-focused while others are lawyer focused. Therefore, some of the technological changes may affect the legal system by replacing some of the services offered by lawyers. However, the online communities, e-discovery, the cloud, and the virtual reality in the legal system are something that will benefit lawyers in the short-term.
References
Bird, R. (2016). Legal information literacy. In The IALL international handbook of legal information management (pp. 139-158). Routledge.
Breuker, J. (2009). Law, ontologies and the semantic web: Channelling the legal information flood . IOS Press
Cohen, A. I., Lender, D. J., & Kalbaugh, G. E. (2016). Electronic discovery: Law and practice . Wolters Kluwer.
Haydock, R. S., & Herr, D. F. (2016). Discovery Practice . Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Kerikmäe, T., Hoffmann, T., & Chochia, A. (2018). Legal technology for law firms: Determining roadmaps for innovation. Croatian International Relations Review , 24 (81), 91-112.
Sheppard, B. (2018). Warming up to inscrutability: How technology could challenge our concept of law. University of Toronto Law Journal , 68 (supplement 1), 36-62.
