Can anyone clarify how this lawyer system works in regard to the involvement of fields they are not intimately familiar? I mean, I know certain lawyers specialises in tech or corporate matters, but it is entirely unrealistic for someone to both be knee-deep in matters of the law and technology (or any other matter they are not necessarily trained in). Do they consult with tech experts? Study up? Guess their way through?

I'm just reminded of what i see as totally botched lawmaking in fields where it seems a certain level of education in that field would be required to make sound decisions on it's behalf. Might be of other reasons than education (i.e. privacy vs government power), but watching this I can't help but feel there's a correlation.

I assume the chasm is only getting greater the more layers of abstraction we add to our technology stack. We're already seeing situations where the only one who can discuss a given case properly, is the accused himself.