Robot lawyers (again)

By Nick Holmes on September 5, 2017
Leave a comment
Filed under Artificial intelligence


In the July issue of Internet Newsletter for Lawyers Casey Flaherty forcefully makes the case against the hype surrounding AI and robots in legal, particularly by vendors talking up their own offerings. He is also somewhat sensitive to those who call their offerings “lawyers” when they clearly are not. One such, indeed the one who has claimed “the world’s first robot lawyer” is all-of-20 Joshua Browder, a British student at Stanford University, majoring in Economics and Computer Science. His DoNotPay robot lawyer started off challenging parking tickets for him and his friends and has now developed into a veritable bot-fest, with over 500 law bots planned in 300 areas of law across US, Canadian and UK jurisdictions.

Read more by me about DoNotPay.

Robots and the law

By Nick Holmes on April 30, 2017
Leave a comment
Filed under Artificial intelligence

My latest article for Internet Newsletter for Lawyers.

How Twitter works

By Nick Holmes on March 14, 2017
Leave a comment
Filed under Twitter


A number of commentators are referring to the Twitter libel case of Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB). In particular, the How Twitter Works appendix has got some excited.

The full judgment is now on BAILII and the Appendix is below. You could also check out my effort.


1. Launched in July 2006, Twitter was the first major ‘micro-blogging’ service, allowing people to use the internet to post very short blogposts.

2. A person who sets up a Twitter account begins by creating a username (sometimes called Twitter ‘handle’) which begins with an @ symbol: e.g. @Person.

3. Twitter automatically creates a Profile page (sometimes called a homepage) for @Person, which will appear online as a webpage at URL in the format:

4. @Person can send ‘tweets’: messages of up to 140 characters which can (but need not) include hyperlinks, photos, videos, emojis, or ‘hashtags’ (words beginning with #, which allow people to join a common conversation). Each tweet gets a unique URL called a ‘permalink’ in the format: .

5. All @Person’s own tweets (of any character whatsoever) appear in reverse chronological order on their Profile page.

6. @Person will also have a Timeline: a reverse chronological stream of tweets from all the users that @Person chooses to follow. This can be found on the Home tab when @Person logs-in to their account. It also displays (top-left corner): @Person’s photo, number of tweets by @Person, number of users @Person follows, and @Person’s number of followers.

7. @Person will have also have other tabs called:

  • Notifications (a private tab which sends @Person ‘alerts’ or ‘notifications’ of activity relating to tweets by, or mentioning, @Person); &
  • Direct Messages or “DMs” (private messages between Twitter users, formerly only between users who followed each other).

8. Different users of Twitter (e.g. @A, @B and @C) can also choose to ‘follow’ @Person’s tweets, meaning that @Persons regular tweets will appear in the Timelines of each of @Person’s followers: i.e. @Person’s tweet appear in @A’s Timeline, @B’s Timeline and @C’s Timeline.

9. Each of those Timelines of @A, @B and @C will be an aggregated feed of all the people that @A follows, that @B follows, and that @C follows respectively.10. @Person can make their tweets ‘private’, whereby no-one can read them except approved followers: if private, only approved followers get @Person’s tweets in their Timelines and only approved followers can view @Person’s Profile page. However, if @Person does not set their account to private, then anyone can can view their tweets online, and anyone can view their Profile page online, even if they do not have a Twitter account.

11. Because not all people are on Twitter all of the time, Twitter has an internal metric of how many times it has actually had to display a particular tweet in any of the above guises: “Impressions”.

For example, if @A is on Twitter only between 0900 until 1000 and 1800 until 1900, they may not see a tweet by @Person at 1200, because by the time they log back on to Twitter at 1800, so many tweets by the people that @A follows have been tweeted that @Person’s tweet is a long way down the Timeline. So Impressions records the number of times that a tweet is actually generated on a screen (of a phone/laptop) by a viewer of the tweet who is active at that time.

12. Any person who has a Twitter account (@3rdParty), and who sees a tweet they like (whether or not they follow that person) can ReTweet (“RT”) it: that is to say re-publish it by pressing a ‘re-tweet’ button. So if @Person tweets, and @3rdParty RTs, the tweet will be republished in its original format (with a small added tagline at the top) saying ‘@3rdParty Retweeted’.

13. RTs appear in on @3rdParty’s profile page, and are published to the followers of @3rdParty (whether or not those people follower @Person).

14. A regular tweet by @Person therefore appears on:

  • @Person’s Profile page;
  • in the Timelines of those who follow @Person
  • on the Profile pages of RTers
  • in the Timelines of those who follow the RTers

15. As well or instead of RTing a tweet by @Person, a @3rdParty can:

  • ‘Like’ the tweet (by clicking on a ‘heart’ or ‘star’ logo);
  • Reply to the tweet (which starts the Reply with the usernames contained within the tweet, including that of the tweeter or any RTer);
  • Expand the tweet (to see all Replies to it);
  • Click on any hyperlink in the tweet
  • Click on any hashtag, which launches a Twitter search for all tweets containing that particular hashtag
  • Click on the permalink (a small link to the tweet’s unique URL)
  • Click on @Person’s username (a link to @Person’s Profile page)
  • Follow the tweeter (@Person) if they don’t do so already

16. All of these actions, including RTing, are called ‘Engagements’.

  • The numbers of some Engagements (RTs, Replies, Likes) are recorded on the public face of the tweet, at the bottom.
  • Other Engagements (Impressions, Expands, Hashtag clicks, Hyperlink clicks, Username clicks) are not on the public face of the tweet, and are only available through the Twitter Analytics service to @Person.

17. When people RT, Reply, or Like a tweet by @Person, then @Person gets a small message (and ‘alert’) in their Notifications tab telling them so. There are no notifications when a person whom you follow deletes a tweet.

18. Some tweets are different, because they also contain another user’s username (@Other) or more than one other user’s usernames (@Other and @Stranger). These usernames can occur anywhere in the tweet. This type of tweet is called an ‘at- mention’, because it ‘mentions’ other users.

19. If @Person tweets and uses @Other somewhere in the tweet (“I watched the football and saw @Other score!”), then even if @Other doesn’t follow @Person, @Other will also receive a Notification of the tweet by @Person (unless they have first Blocked or Muted tweets from @Person). However, subject to the point below, at-mentions are sent to all of @Person’s followers.

20. If, however, @Person begins their tweet with a username (@Stranger), this particular type of at-mention is called an ‘at-reply’ (because it is in the same format as a Reply to a tweet, in that it starts with a username).

21. An at-reply (such as “@Stranger good to meet you today”) will not appear in the timelines of all of @Person’s followers. It will only be published to the timelines of those who follow both @Person and @Stranger (the timelines of “common followers”).

22. However, beyond the timelines of common followers, an at-reply will also be published on @Person’s profile page (like any tweet), and is still capable of being RTed by anyone who sees it (such as @3rdParty). If RTed, an at-reply will still appear on the profile page of anyone who RTs it (i.e. @3rdParty’s profile page), and will be sent to the timelines of all of the followers of anyone who RTs it (i.e. all of @3rdParty’s followers’ timelines).

23. Where @Person decides that they do not like the tweets by @Stranger, they can ‘Mute’ @Stranger (so @Stranger’s tweets don’t appear in @Person’s Timeline, even though @Person still ‘follows’ Stranger and can see tweets on @Stranger’s Profile).

24. If @Person really doesn’t like tweets by @Stranger, they can ‘Block’ @Stranger, and neither @Person nor @Stranger will be able to receive each other’s tweets into their respective Timelines or view each other’s tweets on each other’s Profiles. However, no tweets are deleted by Blocking, and all tweets of a Blocked person are still available for everyone else to see as before, including in any search results.

25. For more serious abuse, @Person can Report an account (e.g. @Troll) to Twitter. If Twitter decides the abuse is serious enough, it can Suspend or Ban the @Troll account, which has the effect of making all of @Troll’s tweets and @Troll’s Profile unavailable for anyone to see. Any at-mentions (including at-replies) which cite ‘@Troll’ will remain the same text, but the link on the @Troll username will no longer be a live hyperlink to the @Troll Profile page.

26. Twitter Analytics allows a @Person to know all the Impressions and Engagements of each of their un-deleted tweets (including at-mentions and at-replies). It also records total Profile views per month (whether because people clicked on the username in tweets, or searched for the Profile page on Twitter or on some other service, such as Google).

Using a bus lane as a cash cow

By Nick Holmes on March 10, 2017
Leave a comment
Filed under Miscellany

Several months back I followed an unfamiliar route across London twice in 10 days. Two weeks after the first incident I received a PCN for driving in a bus lane and 10 days later another one!

I could not believe I had inadvertently strayed into a bus lane twice so I googled it. It’s a notorious bus lane in Lambeth that effectively entraps tens of thousands of motorists annually. It was given publicity in an Evening Standard article in 2015.

I decided not to challenge the PCNs as the contraventions were clear and there were no deficiencies in the signage etc that I could see. However, I felt so aggrieved that I sent an FOI request to Lambeth. You’ll see from the response  that in the last full year they pulled in £1.8 million from 28K contraventions. They have spent only a trivial amount on improving signage etc.

If the purpose of a bus lane is to deter motorists from driving in it and disrupting public transport, then they are singularly failing to do this, and it is a deliberate failing as they have full knowledge of the unusually high number of contraventions and ample evidence of drivers’ feelings of entrapment. They could quite easily have implemented a separating kerb that would prevent driving in the lane except by the most determined.

I’m advised that there’s no hope of getting justice for my fellow 130,000 motorists affected.

Bad luck chaps.

Blogging for lawyers in 2017

By Nick Holmes on March 1, 2017
Leave a comment
Filed under Blogging

I wrote this 6 years ago. I can’t see that I would need to update it for 2017.

All the talk these days is about social networking. Have you got a Facebook page? Do you Tweet? Are you LinkedIn? But we should not forget that the granddaddy of the so-called social media is blogging and that’s been around for a long time; so long, in fact, that blogging is now unremarkable; blogging is normal and that’s good because we can get on with making the most of it without the hype. Let’s see how. …

Read on and tell me if you agree.

RSS is dying, right?

By Nick Holmes on February 7, 2017
Leave a comment
Filed under Feeds

My latest post on Internet Newsletter for Lawyers:

I am a long-time proponent of RSS but am aware that it is declining in visibility. Many sites large and small are not offering RSS feeds any more. What’s up?

Read more

The need for technological competence

By Nick Holmes on October 10, 2016
Comments Off on The need for technological competence
Filed under CPD, Technology

My latest post on Internet Newsletter for Lawyers:

Across the pond, in 2012, the American Bar Association formally approved a change to their Model Rules of Professional Conduct to make clear that lawyers have a duty to be competent not only in the law and its practice, but also in technology, amending Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1 to read as follows:

Read more

Image: cc by Marc Di Luzio on Flickr.

Brexit for lawyers

By Nick Holmes on July 5, 2016
Comments Off on Brexit for lawyers
Filed under Constitutional law, Democracy

Extracts from my latest post in Internet Newsletter for Lawyers about the legal and constitutional issues surrounding Brexit:

As opinions on this change by the hour, your best bet is to follow the latest comments on Twitter from those lawyers who are focussing on the constitutional implications of the Brexit vote and thence read their more considered writings on their blogs. I’ve created a Twitter list where you can follow the leading commentators as a group. They are:

Mark Elliott (@ProfMarkElliott), Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, who blogs at Public Law for Everyone, has recently focussed on the constitutional implications of Brexit, most recently On why, as a matter of law, triggering Article 50 does not require Parliament to legislate.

David Allen Green (@davidallengreen), who blogs about law and policy as Jack of Kent and is also a legal commentator at, is probably the most prolific tweeter and writer about Brexit.

Carl Gardner (@carlgardner), a former government lawyer who blogs about public law as Head of Legal, is also a prolific Tweeter about Brexit.

Jolyon Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) QC, a tax lawyer who blogs at Waiting for Godot, is currently commenting extensively on Brexit on his blog and on the broadcast media. His latest post on The Big Green Button Bill argues that invoking Article 50 would require an Act of Parliament.

Follow also UCL Constitution Unit (@ConUnit_UCL): Constitution Unit Blog.

On immigration: Colin Yeo (@ColinYeo1) at Free Movement.

On human rights: Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) at UK Human Rights Blog.

Image: By Jose Manuel Mota on Flickr.

Never mind the quantity

By Nick Holmes on May 4, 2016
Comments Off on Never mind the quantity
Filed under Future of law

My latest post on the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers.

Image: By Eric Fischer on Flickr.

Writing out loud

By Nick Holmes on February 25, 2016
One comment
Filed under Blogging

My latest post for Internet Newsletter for Lawyers.

Image: By Amy Gahran on Flickr.

We need to stop talking about AI

By Nick Holmes on December 16, 2015
Comments Off on We need to stop talking about AI
Filed under Artificial intelligence

My latest post for Internet Newsletter for Lawyers.

Image: By Saad Faruque on Flickr.

Internet made easy

By Nick Holmes on October 16, 2015
One comment
Filed under Pages on the Web

20 years ago I wrote my first “Page on the Web” column in the Solicitors Journal with a piece about why you should use the internet.

My service provider at the time was Demon Internet. They still are! Thanks Demon.


Is ad blocking unfair?

By Nick Holmes on October 13, 2015
Comments Off on Is ad blocking unfair?
Filed under Advertising, Privacy

My latest post for Internet Newsletter for Lawyers.

Image: Stop! by Axel Schwenke on Flickr.

LinkedIn: know your connections

By Nick Holmes on September 24, 2015
Comments Off on LinkedIn: know your connections
Filed under LinkedIn

Commentators on the ProudmanCarter-Silk affair have understandably criticised one or other, or both, parties’ behaviour.

But I’m more interested in the role LinkedIn played in this. After all, this only came about because Ms Proudman sent an invitation to connect on LinkedIn to someone she did not know and whose line of legal work was not on her patch. Why? Well, for the same reason many of us – faced with an endless stream of profiles of people LinkedIn thinks we might like to connect to – occasionally say, “What the hell, why not connect to them, they might just possibly be useful in future?” “What’s wrong with that?”, you might ask. I’ll tell you: it sends the wrong signal. I’m not talking about the signal it sends to the invitee, but about the signal it sends to LinkedIn. It tells LinkedIn you know that person, and because you know that person, LinkedIn draws all sorts of inferences and – inter alia – will start to suggest you might like to connect to others because that person knows them (that’s how it works).

So my advice is, don’t connect on LinkedIn to anyone you don’t know. You may think you are expanding your network for your future benefit, but you are degrading it’s value. You will waste a lot of time and get unwelcome attention.

Of course, if you see LinkedIn as just another opportunity to market yourself to as many people as possible, go ahead. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Image by Shield Connectors on Flickr.

The Uberisation of law

By Nick Holmes on July 15, 2015
One comment
Filed under Collaborative economy, Future of law

My latest article in the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers gives some perspectives on the sharing economy and how it affects lawyers.

Image: Taxi clown by John Fisher on Flickr.