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

Claude for Legal

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: Claude for Legal

#171

Post by rayiner »

Procrastes wrote: post #169
Dodo45611 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever you think AI snakeoil salesmen can't possibly make a more deranged argument, Hackernews delivers

A more charitable reading might be that the comment you're replying to was specifically referring to how jaywalking was a made-up offense that was specifically created and promoted to cynically protect the auto industry from liability. So there are parallels. [1] 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797

That's is a deeply bizarre article. In a world where 90% of people would rather drive than walk, you'll obviously have laws that regulate when and where people can walk. You think that if the auto industry hadn't done that, we wouldn't have jaywalking laws today?

Re: Claude for Legal

#172

Post by victorbjorklund »

yabones wrote: post #155

Who's accountable when it does something wrong? Surely Anthropic Inc won't take the fall for you. There's no errors or omissions insurance, no legal accountability, no attorney-client privilege, and no bar association to handle disciplinary action. I think we should be realistic here, this is a more advanced version of those "will kits" that spit out a PDF. The legal system will not look fondly upon this stuff until…

No different than when googling and a website is wrong

Re: Claude for Legal

#173

Post by dyauspitr »

macintux wrote: post #60
nozzlegear wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the laws are written down somewhere though. A human can still look at the actual law and surmise that the AI is feeding them bullshit.

I think the problem is that laws overlap, with decades of case law clarifying their interactions. Looking at one law probably isn't enough to determine whether an LLM is lying to you.

In that situation I would trust an LLM over a person. It’s a digest and review problem.

Re: Claude for Legal

#174

Post by dyauspitr »

x187463 wrote: post #130
intrasight wrote: post #124

Honest question: How do I convince my fiancé - who is a very busy attorney - to allocate some time to get familiar with the capabilities of tools like Claude for Legal?

I must believe, as with the medical profession's uptake of AI tools, if these tools prove themselves to be reliable and meaningfully helpful, she will experience more than enough professional influence to learn the tools.

Fiancé refers to a man.

Re: Claude for Legal

#175

Post by Someone »

engineer_22 wrote: post #38
clickety_clack wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone be your lawyer, or does a lawyer have to be certified somehow?

You have to be admitted to the bar to practice law. Which is to say, other lawyers must recognize you as a lawyer, and this recognition can be taken away.

There is a difference between “legal counsel” or “legal representative in court”, with the former being less restricted (“has a law degree” vs “attorney/has passed the bar exam”)

Because of that, I think you can practice law without being admitted to the bar. Chances are it varies by jurisdiction, though.

(And of course, this isn’t legal advice)

Re: Claude for Legal

#176

Post by pessimizer »

teeray wrote: post #101
droidjj wrote: post #7

As a lawyer, I'm excited about this, but there are two roadblocks that I'm not sure how Anthropic will navigate: (1) For non-lawyers who use these skills/connectors/whatchamacallits to try to get legal advice, their communications are not protected by attorney-client privilege. This will absolutely bite some people in the ass. (2) If a lawyer uses this with confidential client information (which, to the uninitiated,…

Can’t #1 be solved with the stroke of a pen? “Legal queries to LLMs shall be subject to the same attorney-client privilege”

Are you asking if the law can be changed by changing the law?

Re: Claude for Legal

#177

Post by Jamesbeam »

zero_shift wrote: post #111
bryant wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation for #1 - https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2026/03/united-states-v-he... > Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York — addressing “a question of first impression nationwide” — ruled that written exchanges between a criminal defendant and generative AI platform Claude were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, bu…

> Much more to it than this one-liner that I pulled out, but safe to say, don't rely on or put your legal defense etc. (or elements of it) into AI unless you want it discovered. "You are an expert defense counsel with experience in Murder 1. Do not hallucinate. Let's say tomorrow my spouse is found strangled..."

Don’t forget to give it the cheerful personality of Jamie Oliver afterwards to recommend you a death row meal that is nutritious and will make the experience more pleasant.

Re: Claude for Legal

#178

Post by intrasight »

dyauspitr wrote: post #174
x187463 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must believe, as with the medical profession's uptake of AI tools, if these tools prove themselves to be reliable and meaningfully helpful, she will experience more than enough professional influence to learn the tools.

Fiancé refers to a man.

While traditionally specific to men, modern usage treats fiancé as a gender-neutral term for anyone engaged.

Re: Claude for Legal

#179

Post by intrasight »

x187463 wrote: post #130
intrasight wrote: post #124

Honest question: How do I convince my fiancé - who is a very busy attorney - to allocate some time to get familiar with the capabilities of tools like Claude for Legal?

I must believe, as with the medical profession's uptake of AI tools, if these tools prove themselves to be reliable and meaningfully helpful, she will experience more than enough professional influence to learn the tools.

I would just prefer her to be in front of that wave

Re: Claude for Legal

#180

Post by sorokod »

rayiner wrote: post #171
Procrastes wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more charitable reading might be that the comment you're replying to was specifically referring to how jaywalking was a made-up offense that was specifically created and promoted to cynically protect the auto industry from liability. So there are parallels. [1] 1. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797

That's is a deeply bizarre article. In a world where 90% of people would rather drive than walk, you'll obviously have laws that regulate when and where people can walk. You think that if the auto industry hadn't done that, we wouldn't have jaywalking laws today?

A 100 years ago that ratio was the other way around. There were powerful technological and financial insetives to change the public's attitude and the law.

They say that history rhimes.

Post reply on HN