Abstract
How come legal designers keep relying on design things that make change appear possible when we know that legal things are more reliable at making change actually possible? We argue for an understanding of what legal design is as opposed to could / should be in terms of actual change (sensed as changes of a world) and the appearance of change (sensed as changed in the world). We describe what things and background practices are and do, what design things and legal things are and do, and what designers and lawyers or judges are and tend to do. We conclude with a discussion of what legal designers could/should be doing and what will stand in their way.
Keywords
actual change, appearance of change, background practices, disclosive skills
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.669
Citation
Bhatnagar, S. (2022) What legal design is as opposed to could/should be, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.669
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Conference Track
Research Paper
Included in
What legal design is as opposed to could/should be
How come legal designers keep relying on design things that make change appear possible when we know that legal things are more reliable at making change actually possible? We argue for an understanding of what legal design is as opposed to could / should be in terms of actual change (sensed as changes of a world) and the appearance of change (sensed as changed in the world). We describe what things and background practices are and do, what design things and legal things are and do, and what designers and lawyers or judges are and tend to do. We conclude with a discussion of what legal designers could/should be doing and what will stand in their way.