Skip to main content

AI Experts Who Think Robots Will Kill the Legal Profession Don't Understand the Legal Profession

Maybe this is just a pet peeve of mine. And maybe it's a pet peeve because I'm a lawyer and am looking forward to a long, fruitful career as a lawyer.

But otherwise very smart people studying and developing Artificial Intelligence keep saying lawyers are one of the most obvious professions to be replaced by robots. Yet they continue to demonstrate that they don't understand what lawyers actually do.

This is from a May, 2015 article that appeared on pbs.org:

Attorneys:

Though it’s unlikely we’ll see robots litigating in courtrooms any time soon, Ford says that some highly billable work normally reserved for seasoned attorneys is in the process of being automated.“We are already seeing an impact in fields like law, with entry level and paralegal jobs which involve document review. It used to be a manual process. They had to read through documents. Now that’s done algorithmically using artificial intelligence.”

“There’s a new emerging technology called quantitative legal prediction. It turns out that experienced lawyers often add a lot of value by making predictions. They’ll do things like tell you what is the likelihood you’re going to win a case, or that the case will be overturned on appeal, for example. It generally takes a lot of judgement and experience to make those kinds of predictions, but these algorithms can actually out-perform even the most experienced lawyers by just looking at lots and lots of data.”


Where to begin with the wrongness of these statements?

1. The expert talks about replacing "paralegal" jobs. But paralegals aren't lawyers.

2. The expert talks about document review. Really? If you're a party in a multi-million dollar lawsuit that involves intensive document review, where there may be one document, in a stack of 20,000, that blows the case wide open, are you really going to rely on a computer to find it? Do you trust a computer to accurately read all text on documents, including handwritten notes? I have the latest Adobe Acrobat software, and it struggles to read things.

Oh, and document review is not done by "seasoned attorneys". It is done by newbies, which the next sentence in that paragraph confirms. In fact, these days it is done more and more on a per diem, as-needed, basis, not by full-time employed lawyers at firms. And that is maybe 0.05% of the legal profession, if that.

3. "Quantitative legal prediction" and "the likelihood you're going to win a case". What does that even mean? What is "winning a case"? Is it winning a case on a motion for summary judgment? Is it getting a case dismissed on a pre-answer motion to dismiss? What if you win before the lower court but lose before the appeals court? What if you lose before the lower court but win on appeal? Appeals courts say it's hard to get them to reverse a lower court, you better make a strong showing, but I've done it. What would a computer say about that?

And what if you get a $10 million jury verdict after a trial in a personal injury case (which could happen in the Bronx). On appeal, you might get nothing because the appeals court could say the jury was wrong! Or the appeals court can knock the award down to $50,000. Which one of those outcomes is a "win" (if any)?

Let's say your case goes to trial. One thing jurors decide is the credibility of witnesses who testify at trial. Can robots predict how a jury will judge a witness's credibility? Of course not. Nobody knows beforehand. But the whole case could turn on one witness's credibility.  For instance, in criminal cases, many people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes, released only after decades in prison.

Some (civil) defendants are caught "dead to rights", but choose to fight anyway, to the bitter end, for whatever reason. I've seen it many times. It just means more and more costs and expenses on both sides of a lawsuit. A robot's prediction about winning a case means nothing in that situation.

And by the way, before you can even make a prediction about winning a case, you have to go through the disclosure of evidence, called the discovery process:  lawsuits, answers, notices for discovery and inspection, notices to admit, subpoenas, interrogatories, depositions, motions to compel, motions to preclude, motions for protective orders, court conferences along the way, etc. Are robots going to do any of that? No. But the AI expert does not include any of that in his statements--because he doesn't know.

This nonsense about "quantitative legal prediction" is meaningless in the real world. It has no practical application and shows these AI experts have no idea what lawyers actually do or how the legal system actually works.


Comments

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...

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...

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...