Technology can, at times, change the rules of the game, Ron and Donald stress. Yet, they also point out that sometimes lawyers suggest contractual terms that are legally feasible but based on current technology, impractical – such as the Bitcoin 10-second consensus period: a performance requirement that is not possible to do. As our guests explain, if there are terms in a contract that are unworkable, it could lead to a lawyer killing a deal either out of ignorance of the underlying technology or a lack of commercial acumen. 

The discussion moves onto how rare it is to find those that are technically trained and also licensed, practicing lawyers. Clearly, the more technical a subject, the less likely an average dispute resolution practitioner at the typical multinational, Anglo-American law firm is going to be up to the task. Our guests acknowledge that leaves clients a very narrow field of specialists to choose from if they want to be represented by lawyers who both understand both the law and the underlying technology involved. 

Yet, as Ron Yu notes, even 'non-techies' can bring themselves up to speed by educating themselves, pointing to the living example of US federal judge Randall R. Rader - as has been the case with FinTech and cryptocurrencies. 

Lawyers often view technology through the lens of the legal and regulatory compliance implications, with less focus on the implementation of a particular technology. How it will work, and how and where best to use it is an afterthought. As for cybersecurity, it is regarded as an IT issue, they say. If a lawyer overlooks the cybersecurity issues, Yu said, then they are glossing over important technical details which can harm a client. 

​

The conversation concludes on the point that when it comes to 'tech lawyers', it certainly seems that, generally speaking in APAC, those practitioners that market themselves well have the biggest platforms and the loudest voices and are, therefore, regarded as authorities in their respective fields. 

Clearly. there are times where there is no substitute for the right kind of technical background. For example, as Donald Day recalls, patent litigators not infrequently have to deal with solicitors who don’t understand the tech and those solicitors soon become a hindrance. 

Both guests underscore the lingering perception that it is not ideal to engage in IP-related litigation in Hong Kong because of the lack of talent; even if a specialist carefully explains something to a solicitor, the latter will invariably get it wrong or simply not understand the subject matter.