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

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more