Think about it: the legal profession is possibly one of the most threatened by the development of AI models. What better way to secure the professional future of the long tail of lawyers and paralegals?
People are dumb. Lawyers shouldn't be. If distribution of stupidity among certain professions is similar to that of people in general, something has gone very bad somewhere in the education and certification pipeline.
I mean, I did computer support for many lawyers and prosecutors and many were clever intelligent people. Others had to be explained to in simple instructions they shouldn't pour the glue on their keyboard before eating it. How they became a lawyer is beyond my understanding, and yet here we are.
The true test is the bar, but even then you can probably get lucky or hammer enough stuff in head to pass.
eg., You probably shouldn't hire a lawyer with no law degree or no experience simply based on the fact that there are tons of credentialed, experienced attorneys who are no good.
A lawyer.
I think it’s flipped for doctors (which is where the original joke comes from?) and an MD isn’t awarded until licensure is completed.
Not a lawyer.
In some cases - even more dumb, since they have this belief that their credentials mean they know everything about law.
An awful lot of what a lawyer does is look stuff up... and in some cases, they aren't even that capable. All too often you are responsible for providing your lawyer with mountains of research, arguments, etc.
Obviously the good ones, as in any profession, will probably also be "smart", but that's just the top.
> something has gone very bad somewhere in the education and certification pipeline.
Yeah like the fact lawyers earn far more money than people responsible for teaching kids... teaching future generations should be at least as prestigious and well paid job
rather than an evil genius lawyer playing 3d chess while perfectly appearing to be an incompetent lawyer
The lawyer wasn't admitted to Federal court, so he signed his partner's name on the filing.
That's an incompetent lawyer, and a dishonest one. It's not 3D chess, it's just "sleazy lawyers gonna sleaze".
The judge, in his ruling linked in previous HN discussion, listed a good half dozen parts of a legal dispute where he thinks AI would be super awesome, and then lays out why this particular part of the dispute is terrible for AI to play a role.
and subpoenaed the officer to make sure he showed up in court for the hearing so that they could actually have oral argument.
The best way to avoid such a ticket is to show up to court and hope the officer doesn't show up. And the AI firm went outs of way to make sure the officer showed up. That's legal malpractice right there. (In the end, IIRC, the judge heard about the firm's involvement and put the kibosh on the entire thing.)
So an AI can do the work but the person handling the dispute needs to sign off on it. If the AI screws up and the lawyer doesn't catch it then the lawyer's on the hook. I don't see any need to change this.