dcazdavi t1_j60mfx3 wrote on January 26, 2023 at 9:37 PM

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

>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.

sickofthisshit t1_j60zcwu wrote on January 26, 2023 at 11:01 PM

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.

youmu123 t1_j62fwkq wrote on January 27, 2023 at 5:53 AM

>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?

Commotion t1_j62hup7 wrote on January 27, 2023 at 6:14 AM

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.

sickofthisshit t1_j638zh1 wrote on January 27, 2023 at 12:04 PM

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.