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

The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

diffuseai.pub

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#51

Post by codeduck »

jjav wrote: post #48
jorisw wrote: post #5

Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous) to begin with: > But law isn’t actually code, and society and courts aren’t computers. [...] the law is not deterministic. You simply cannot take the facts of a case, the law as written, and predict the outcome of that case with any real certainty, even though the formality of the legal system makes people think it works like a computer —…

> Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous) I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible. I've always thought that we (as a country) should maintain one single ordered list of specific crimes and punishments. Every new case that wants to set a punishment must insert it into this ordered list and explain convincingly why it fits into the list at the propos…

> I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible.

It is (probably) impossible to write down a complete list of rules for how to judge even petty crimes. Someone who steals a loaf of bread because their child is starving should not be punished the same way as someone who steals a loaf of bread because they're a kleptomaniac.

No two situations are identical, and the problems start when you try to come up with a one-size-fits-all approach.

A human with sound judgement (and, arguably, some empathy) should be in control.

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#52

Post by netcan »

A lot of the applications of Ai are going to have to go through "normal" innovation routes.

Eg low-end disruption. I have already seen "Ai lawyer" at play here.

A colleague of mine is involved in a long class action against a builder. The group chats have gone absolutely chaotic this year... as members consult heavily with LLMs and the (real) lawyer can't deal with the volume of action.

Another friend is a wholesaler and does a lot of small-scale commercial deals. Contracts have gotten bigger and negotiation has gotten more involved as "Ai lawyers" read and write these contracts.

Employment contracts are much more likely to be negotiated, referenced, etc.

So... These are all routes to "classic" disruptive innovation. It's not replacing billable hours at law firms. It is replacing non-consumption.

Law is adversarial. A formal legal letter requires a form of legal letter in response. Law generates its own demand.

I would be watching a lot more for ground up innovation, rather than adoption at firms.

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#53

Post by District5524 »

jedberg wrote: post #23

Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. They would need far more clients to bill the same hours. I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimen…

If you involve a lawyer only for the final review, they will understand you don't want them to rethink your approach nor to advise a different strategy. So, they will just bill you for the time, which seems to be fine for both parties of the trade. And, where it's mandatory to have a law firm draft a deed or a contract (like for mortgage or real estate transactions, depending on the state you're in), your Claude-made first draft will not make your bill lower. Just don't try to rely on this for adversarial work, like in litigation. BTW, just curious about the timing: how could Claude for Legal save you thousands of dollars at your last company if the product came out in February? (Not that Claude for Legal is any special in its legal output compared to "ordinary" Claude)

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#54

Post by jedberg »

District5524 wrote: post #53
jedberg wrote: post #23

Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. They would need far more clients to bill the same hours. I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimen…

If you involve a lawyer only for the final review, they will understand you don't want them to rethink your approach nor to advise a different strategy. So, they will just bill you for the time, which seems to be fine for both parties of the trade. And, where it's mandatory to have a law firm draft a deed or a contract (like for mortgage or real estate transactions, depending on the state you're in), your Claude-made…

> If you involve a lawyer only for the final review, they will understand you don't want them to rethink your approach nor to advise a different strategy

These were enterprise contracts where the other company made the contract. It was basically negotiating specific points of the contract. Claude legal called out a few areas that were disadvantageous to us, and then prepared redlines to send back. The same thing my lawyer was doing for me before I switched to using Claude, except I was waiting a week for each turnaround and paying for a few hours of billable hours every time.

> BTW, just curious about the timing: how could Claude for Legal save you thousands of dollars at your last company if the product came out in February?

Negotiating bespoke enterprise contracts can get expensive, especially when the other party is a huge corporation with a big legal team and a lot of time on their hands. And only the latest product came out in February, there were other products before that.

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#55

Post by District5524 »

zuzululu wrote: post #45

I've successfully sued my neighbor over land disputes. I've won small claims against companies. I've used AI to do it. I'm no longer afraid. Obviously I'm not going to be taking on huge law firms but AI has opened up a whole new vector for me in that I am able to sue people at will without paying for any legal fees and I think that is the most powerful outcome of all. My days are spent now not asking what mobile apps…

Before suing all your coworkers for garnishing their wages, I suggest you first consider how much fun you will have when you have to pay for the legal costs of the other party. But you will find that out for yourself. Anyways, I don't think it's your choice whether you want to take on huge law firms - that's usually the other party's choice. (I do hope most security researchers have a bit more training than "some education".)

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#56

Post by logicchains »

pj_mukh wrote: post #50
brikym wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are right but I don't think the comparison holds that well. I can't take a scan of myself and send it to some AI because I don't have the hardware. I have to go to some highly consolidated business. But the last time I did something legal with AI there was no such choke point. It walked me through filing a trade mark and I didn't have to leave my desk. The difference in capital deployed is huge. A common la…

"I can't take a scan of myself" Radiologists don't do this, that's just rad techs. There's specifically been an explosion in the need for AI review of real radiology analysis and handling complex patient situations.

There'll never be "scan at home" because hypochondriacs would keep scanning themselves hundreds of times per week and giving themselves cancer.

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#57

Post by jedberg »

piker wrote: post #27
jedberg wrote: post #23

Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. They would need far more clients to bill the same hours. I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimen…

These are probably contracts where a lawyer would struggle to add value anyway, or you wouldn’t have hired them in the first place. Seems more likely a Jevon’s paradox example to me than anything.

Most certainly not. These were enterprise licensing agreements where the other party was a large corporation who had a lot of lawyers and time. I was using the human lawyer for these before switching to Claude legal. Both produced roughly the same output (redlines to fix the things that were disadvantageous to us).

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#58

Post by jedberg »

roenxi wrote: post #38
jstanley wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lawyers bill by the hour. It is not in their interest to speed up what they do, because they only have so many clients. This isn't how markets work. If one lawyer starts doing 10x as much work in the same number of hours, then all the customers will move to that lawyer as soon as they find out, and the other lawyers will have to adapt to remain competitive.

And for a thought experiment - if a lawyer controls the pace of their work, why work at any reasonable speed? They could take the client's money and go picnic or something then put in 20 minutes at the end of the day. Something is forcing them to put in long hours. It's the market.

Because they have ethics rules to only bill for hours actually worked. If they did that, they would only get paid for 20 minutes of work.

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#59

Post by z3t4 »

codeduck wrote: post #51
jjav wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous) I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible. I've always thought that we (as a country) should maintain one single ordered list of specific crimes and punishments. Every new case that wants to set a punishment must insert it into this ordered list and explain convincingly why it fits into the list at the propos…

> I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible. It is (probably) impossible to write down a complete list of rules for how to judge even petty crimes. Someone who steals a loaf of bread because their child is starving should not be punished the same way as someone who steals a loaf of bread because they're a kleptomaniac. No two situations are identical, and the problems start when you try t…

Someone with psychopathic characteristics would lie in their favour. So someone would need to fact check, a doctor would have to check if the children are actually starving? And on the other side, someone who contribute greatly to community and society, should that person get a lower sentence because of that?

Re: The Structural Barriers to AI Lawyers

#60

Post by piker »

jedberg wrote: post #57
piker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are probably contracts where a lawyer would struggle to add value anyway, or you wouldn’t have hired them in the first place. Seems more likely a Jevon’s paradox example to me than anything.

Most certainly not. These were enterprise licensing agreements where the other party was a large corporation who had a lot of lawyers and time. I was using the human lawyer for these before switching to Claude legal. Both produced roughly the same output (redlines to fix the things that were disadvantageous to us).

Yes, that sounds like the former case. The fact that you were so satisfied with the switch supports the point. It's boring work that is routine and expensive. It's right to automate the first turn.
Post reply on HN