Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dcazdavi t1_j60gdb2 wrote

Reply to comment by sickofthisshit in Jail threats stop AI 'robot lawyer' from making its debut in court | Engadget by yourd00m

what other conclusion could a legal layman reach when lawyers have prevented anyone from even trying?

i don't doubt that it couldn't replace a lawyer yet but i has to start somewhere and it's not being allowed to happen at all with no reasons given.

−6

sickofthisshit t1_j60j959 wrote

>lawyers have prevented anyone from even trying?

That is not what happened. Some douchebro with no clue was stopped from completely screwing over innocent people by giving them garbage advice.

The way to figure out if AI can help is to engage on good faith with lawyers doing the work, not to pretend you have some patent medicine to cure every legal problem and brag online.

10

dcazdavi t1_j60jt9t wrote

a c-level exec of a startup was going to try using it in court to defend against a ticket of his own and he was threatened with legal action if he tried.

many laywers wouldn't bother with such cases and even more cannot afford to seek a lawyer's help; so alternatives are need

1

sickofthisshit t1_j60ki07 wrote

The idiot was not clear about whose ticket it was and said he sent a subpoena to the cop which is the absolute last thing you want to do. Basically your only hope in a speeding ticket is the cop not showing up.

If it was his ticket, he was just stupid, if it was someone else's ticket, it is unlicensed practice of law, and really bad advice.

12

dcazdavi t1_j60mfx3 wrote

>If it was his ticket, he was just stupid, if it was someone else's ticket, it is unlicensed practice of law, and really bad advice.

with low stakes which is exactly where you start to test something new.

he's fully aware that it's not a lawyer, so unlicensed practice accusations don't make sense and it's a tool whose wielder has to know that any sharp edge tools can also cut you as well; assuming it even gets a chance to become a tool.

2

sickofthisshit t1_j60zcwu wrote

Unlicensed practice of law does not have an "I know I am not a lawyer" exception. If he is using an AI to give people advice on what to do when they appear before a judge, that is practicing law. And neither he nor the AI are licensed for that in any jurisdiction.

As for "low stakes", the same grifter bro was offering a million dollars for some "lawyer or person" to use AI before the Supreme Court.

Also, you start playing games with a Court, they can cite you for contempt, beyond whatever the ticket penalty would be. You could get the judge to suspend your license when he was just going to give you a fine.

This is not a fucking game where people should try out experimental shit just to see how it goes.

8

youmu123 t1_j62fwkq wrote

>Unlicensed practice of law does not have an "I know I am not a lawyer" exception.

Does this effectively mean that non-lawyers have no right to represent themselves? Can't the guy represent himself using AI arguments with the AI as an advisor?

0

Commotion t1_j62hup7 wrote

Non-lawyers can represent themselves. They can’t represent others.

Using AI while in court might be issue. I don’t think most judges would let people search for arguments on Google during oral argument either.

2

sickofthisshit t1_j638zh1 wrote

The restriction is on other people offering guidance, and to argue on behalf of someone else, such as the service offering the AI for this purpose, particularly if the AI is being consulted at court and offering "knowledge" about the law.

The grifter is straight up running a service and saying "use this to get help for your legal situation". This is pretty much as clear as a violation can be.

2