Skip to main content

Why Lawyers Will Never Be Replaced By Robots

The next major shift in labor in this country will be robots/Artificial Intelligence/automation replacing humans. It is happening already. After all, robots don't get sick. Robots don't take vacation or personal days. Robots don't need health insurance. You don't have to pay robots overtime.

So what about lawyers? Could we be replaced? I was watching Charlie Rose interview an AI expert from Carnegie Mellon University. He said one of the first industries that will see a change to robots would be the legal industry. A couple other sources have said the same thing.

My response: the idea that lawyers will be replaced by robots is idiotic.

My first draft of this laid out numerous reasons why these people don't understand the many different kinds of lawyers there are and the many different kinds of things lawyers do. But the draft was too long. So I thought I'd focus on the main reason, which these people don't get.

There is a fundamental reason why lawyers will never be replaced by robots, and the reason is that the people who write and pass laws tend to be lawyers (!), and lawyers will never write themselves out of existence. In other words, robots will never replace lawyers because lawyers (state legislatures) will never allow it to happen. Laws regulating the legal profession will always require human (i.e. human lawyer) involvement in for-pay legal services.

Similar laws already exist. For instance, non-lawyers cannot do "lawyer" things and get paid for it. That is called the unauthorized practice of law.

Also, attorney ethics laws do not allow non-lawyers to make legal decisions on behalf of the lawyer's client because that interferes with the lawyer's own, independent, professional judgment.

Ha, you may say, this is just sleazy lawyers protecting themselves. Yes in the sense that lawyers will never write themselves out of existence. But no in that legal clients really do need human involvement. There is a relationship of confidence and trust between lawyer and client. Clients need guidance. Clients often have a lot of questions. Clients often need to be reassured about things as a legal matter moves along. Also, human lawyers can relate to their clients' problems, robots can't.

Again, this discussion could go on and on, but I'll leave off here. Lawyers will never be replaced by robots, but that is a good thing for both lawyers and clients.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Developments: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court Decision Throwing Out Plaintiff's Car Accident Case

In a decision issued on March 25, 2015 , the appeals court that covers Long Island and parts of NYC reversed   a decision by a lower court that threw out a car accident case brought by an injured plaintiff. The plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was struck in the rear by someone driving a vehicle with dealer plates for Bay Ridge Lexus. As is not unusual, the driver of the dealer car (who could be an employee or manager at Bay Ridge) apparently told the driver of the other car, no, don't call the cops; this is a dealer car; take your car to Bay Ridge, and they'll fix it. However, the plaintiff passenger was physically injured and eventually sued Bay Ridge, its related companies, and the other driver. Because the cops were not called, and for whatever other reason, Bay Ridge had no record of the accident. The defendants then used this lack of a record on their end to make a motion to dismiss plaintiff's case. (Did they think the plaintiff was making the whole thing u...
Post a Comment
Read more