An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
211–220 of 708 posts
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#212This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a parking ticket in the first place. The last time I got a parking ticket I had photos and documentary evidence that I should not have been liable. After I lodged my intent to contest the fine, the council sent me a letter saying how they win 97% of cases and I should just pay up now to avoid the risk. I called bullshit and turned up on my court date. There…
True, but I don't thinks it's about if you need one or not. I think it's about money. Luddites trying to keep automation out from their profession.
I'm facing 20 years in jail. I would MUCH RATHER have an actual world class lawyer representing me than a freaking chatbot!
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#213The HMCTS held a hackathon for the future tech in the UK court system a few years ago. The judges were people like the CEO of the courts, they also had lord chief justice. There were all sorts of firms like Linklaters, Pinsent Mason and Deloitte. We won with a simple Alexa lawyer that was to help poor rental tenants. It generated documents to send a landlord and possible legal advice. The idea was specifically for pe…
I'm interested. What sort of regulations do you think would affect the robo-lawyer space in the UK? Self-representation is frowned upon and mostly disallowed. Lawyers are expensive. I'd genuinely consider having ChatGPT fight for me.
Privacy seems like it would be a major issue. As a litigant, I would not want the opposing side piping my case information to a third party and having this information used to train the AI for future cases.
AI could be very useful for helping pro-so litigants prepare documents. I imagine with this use case as well as the oral argument use case, judges are also worried about low quality output wasting the court's time.
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#214This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a parking ticket in the first place. The last time I got a parking ticket I had photos and documentary evidence that I should not have been liable. After I lodged my intent to contest the fine, the council sent me a letter saying how they win 97% of cases and I should just pay up now to avoid the risk. I called bullshit and turned up on my court date. There…
The issue here (as with many disruptive tech companies), is the regulatory system. It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you are not licensed to practice law. If DoNotPay isn't licensed to practice law in California, they can't do this. And unless they have a plan to either get licensed in many states, or somehow change the law, then their business model sucks. It sounds to me that they haven't actuall…
> It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you are not licensed to practice law.
You also can't have a human in the next room feeding you lines... even if that person is an attorney.
However, a party / attorney certainly can bring in notes / a casebook / etc. You can usually bring in a laptop, with search functions, pdfs, etc. An AI that quickly presents relevant information, documents, caselaw, etc. would 100% be allowed. However, if they're sworn in to testify, these would usually be taken away, because testimony is supposed to be from personal knowledge / memory.
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#215Rabbit trail: What is the state of non-ai tech to assist in building or defending cases? I vaguely know a thing called LexusNexus exists, but not what it does. Is there a system where a lawyer can search, find related law, then fill out a form to generate a draft case or defense? It seems to my un-lawyer self the legal system could be codified into a rules engine: IF these legal inputs, THEN these outputs. Or reverse…
Lexis is an information aggregation company. They take a large quantity of US law and Court opinions and publish them. These sources are then linked together using a relatively simple tag style system.
I’m general you can get forms for very specific and predictable case types, but for a large portion of practice, outside of initial filings the fact-specific nature of subsequent pleadings are harder to formalize.
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#216This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a parking ticket in the first place. The last time I got a parking ticket I had photos and documentary evidence that I should not have been liable. After I lodged my intent to contest the fine, the council sent me a letter saying how they win 97% of cases and I should just pay up now to avoid the risk. I called bullshit and turned up on my court date. There…
I'm betting they gas up the numbers by only considering cases that they send people to fight, and ignore these default judgement cases... that's takin' the piss, amIrite?
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue here (as with many disruptive tech companies), is the regulatory system. It is illegal in most states to give legal advice if you are not licensed to practice law. If DoNotPay isn't licensed to practice law in California, they can't do this. And unless they have a plan to either get licensed in many states, or somehow change the law, then their business model sucks. It sounds to me that they haven't actuall…
IMHO some regulation and especially entry barriers had good ideas but their con overwhelm the pro nowadays (think barriers such as foreign doctors need to re-study X years and re-practice Y years, or you simply cannot take certification exams if you do not come from Z school, or technically you may lose insurance claims on your house if you do some repairs but do not have certification K). Since the world is already…
I don't understand your statement. Because regulations have advanced various fields, like medicine, engineering, health, environment, to the point that we are seeing the fruit of that regulation, we need to get rid of the regulations? We don't have to worry about really unqualified lawyers, doctors, teachers, or engineers, etc. So what we need to do is go back to a time when we did?
Also, aren't there already numerous certifications you earn for various technologies that companies explicitly look for when hiring?
I'm confused about what you're getting at.
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that ChatGPT makes up convincing sounding case law, reference court rules that either don't exist or don't say what the summary says, reference the same issues with legislation, and do so with 100% confidence of the truth of these statements. ChatGPT is good for discovering potential arguments, and summarizing existing ones, but it's not there yet for the fidelity necessary for legal practice. It's not…
Real lawyers can do these things too. The issue is that we cannot punish or disbar ChatGPT for misbehavior like this.
I don't think they will replace lawyers any time soon. Paralegals.. Maybe. I've worked with legal software before, and with just a little bit more smarts, the software could do a lot of grunt work.
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#219This is so fucking dumb. As if you need a lawyer to contest a parking ticket in the first place. The last time I got a parking ticket I had photos and documentary evidence that I should not have been liable. After I lodged my intent to contest the fine, the council sent me a letter saying how they win 97% of cases and I should just pay up now to avoid the risk. I called bullshit and turned up on my court date. There…
The reason you would need a lawyer for a parking ticket is:
1) It's not worth your time to be there yourself. (This assumes it cannot be done by mail as in your case.)
2) To know all the local procedures, judges, etc. and know what to expect.
AI is not going to take care of either of those problems.
Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMHO some regulation and especially entry barriers had good ideas but their con overwhelm the pro nowadays (think barriers such as foreign doctors need to re-study X years and re-practice Y years, or you simply cannot take certification exams if you do not come from Z school, or technically you may lose insurance claims on your house if you do some repairs but do not have certification K). Since the world is already…
I don't understand your statement. Because regulations have advanced various fields, like medicine, engineering, health, environment, to the point that we are seeing the fruit of that regulation, we need to get rid of the regulations? We don't have to worry about really unqualified lawyers, doctors, teachers, or engineers, etc. So what we need to do is go back to a time when we did? Also, aren't there already numerou…
Just my cynical vents about some entry barriers.