Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 708 posts

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#221

Post by asvitkine »

inetknght wrote: post #196
ovi256 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all exist for good reasons Sure, but what's banned is surely not all medical or legal advice. I can browse case law or US code thinking about my case - somehow this does not need a legal license. At the other end of the continuum, talking to a lawyer about my case obviously needs him to be licensed. So now we're debating on which side of the cutoff using DoNotPay's robot must fall. The lawyers have made their mind…

> I can browse case law or US code thinking about my case - somehow this does not need a legal license. Of course. With rare exceptions, court proceedings are public. But being able to read court proceeds or judgements or anything at all doesn't mean that you know and understand the law . You know, the actual words that are written and codified that must be interpreted and adhered to with jurisprudence . Not that law…

But on the other hand, one can't argue ignorance of the law so then everyone is supposed to already know all laws and understand them!

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#222

Post by jwsteigerwalt »

Unfortunately, the existence of the law cartel does not make this ok. The solution is to break down the law cartel so that there are more mediocre bar members that can facilitate the AI argument being made.

You can represent yourself (where applicable) or you can have representation. That representation is an officer of the court and must adhere to professional standards to maintain their license and bar membership. Even if you could force an algorithm to adhere to professional standards, it’s unlikely that it could be legitimately considered an officer of the court any time soon.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#223

Post by asvitkine »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #154
tialaramex wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the US have McKenzie Friends ? Seems like "No". You should get McKenzie Friends. McKenzie Friends can't represent you in court, in most cases they're not allowed to address the court, but they can help you in all the other ways you'd expect, like quietly prompting you on what points to mention, keeping notes, ensuring you have the right paperwork. Friend stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend

The US does not have them, and they are not legal. I agree that they could be useful. But in the US you have strictly two options- represent yourself to a court, or let a bar-certified lawyer represent you. Nobody else gets to help in court. Outside of court, legal assistants help lawyers with administrative stuff- doing legal research, organizing paperwork, etc. But the lawyer holds the sole responsibility to the co…

Seems like the company could perhaps switch its focus to markets where these are allowed?

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#224

Post by concordDance »

asah wrote: post #35
joshka wrote: post #29

Earlier 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.

Real people representing themselves can do it too.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#225

Post by ClumsyPilot »

asvitkine wrote: post #221
inetknght wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can browse case law or US code thinking about my case - somehow this does not need a legal license. Of course. With rare exceptions, court proceedings are public. But being able to read court proceeds or judgements or anything at all doesn't mean that you know and understand the law . You know, the actual words that are written and codified that must be interpreted and adhered to with jurisprudence . Not that law…

But on the other hand, one can't argue ignorance of the law so then everyone is supposed to already know all laws and understand them!

I am strong believe that basics of law should be taught in school, especially criminal.

If governmet will prosecute me for free (to the accuser), then it should, for free, teach me the law.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#226

Post by concordDance »

The fact that a guild controls the legal system has always been alarming to me. Its very much in their interests to make it impossible to avoid spending huge amount on their services and reduce supply by making it hard for more people to become members.

Lawyers will probably be the last profession to be automated.

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#227

Post by wittycardio »

throwawa454 wrote: post #212
Pinegulf wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

[dead]

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#228

Post by elil17 »

ovi256 wrote: post #194
jonstewart wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could also argue the real problem is the tech industry constantly ignoring regulations that were put in place for good reasons. Car dealerships are for sure a clear example of regulatory capture, but “legal advice from lawyers”, “medicine from doctors”, “insurance from companies that can prove they can pay out”, and “equities backed by actual assets” all exist for good reasons.

> all exist for good reasons Sure, but what's banned is surely not all medical or legal advice. I can browse case law or US code thinking about my case - somehow this does not need a legal license. At the other end of the continuum, talking to a lawyer about my case obviously needs him to be licensed. So now we're debating on which side of the cutoff using DoNotPay's robot must fall. The lawyers have made their mind…

I don't think and anyone is saying that using the bot is illegal. The issue is that DoNotPay is calling the bot a lawyer and therefor implying that it gives legal advice. Their website literally says "World's First Robot Lawyer." Someone who doesn't understand AI might wrongly think that their AI tools are qualified to represent them on their own.

I suspect that it would be much less of an issue if it was advertised as an "AI paralegal."

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#229

Post by elil17 »

ClarityJones wrote: post #214
parsimo2010 wrote: post #130

Earlier 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…

> 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. woul…

> You also can't have a human in the next room feeding you lines... even if that person is an attorney.

I believe this varies state by state. In Delaware, litigants representing themselves can bring a cell phone to court, and could presumably use it to have lines fed to them (e.g., I don't know that anyone has done that but I can't find any rule against it). In neighboring Maryland, you can't use electronic devices for communication with persons during in court (although the AI would not be a person so it would be allowed).

Re: An AI lawyer was set to argue in court – real lawyers shut it down

#230

Post by pseingatl »

Their mistake was using this tool in a criminal case. They could have rolled it out for arbitrations and/or mediations, proceedings which do not necessarily require legal counsel.

The legal system has various functions. One of these is determining the facts. Think of it as agreeing on what prompt to give the AI. Once the facts are determined, everything else pretty much follows.

If Fact A then Consequence B. If the parties can agree on the facts, AI will tell them the likely consequences. But as a fact-finding tool, in present form AI is not useful.

Maybe the next iteration.

Post reply on HN