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

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
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