'Robot Lawyer' Quits

[@jamesbarber5410]

Hey Steve I am a paralegal in Alaska and I once received a similar letter from the State attorney general’s office in a federal case I was helping to prepare pleadings for. I filed a notice with the federal judge about the letter and suggested that the letter itself amounted to felony coercion and wouldn’t you know it, the AG backed all the way off. I have a feeling that this letter is similar in nature.

[@TimoRutanen]

Isn't it a bit late to 'back off' if a threat is on paper with a signature on the bottom?

[@kevinpalmer4137]

Felony cohesion you say? What do you think odds are he learns this one trick attorneys general don't want you to know

[@robertsmith2956]

@@JohnTheRevelat0r AFTER a strip, and body cavity search of course.

[@JamesTK]

@@robertsmith2956 when all you were trying to do is see your significant other in prison. That's their world.

[@ahnbra]

I think you might be on the right track. No trial took place with this AI/Robot Lawyer yet. I would say the letters and other threats are on the wrong side of the law.

[@AFloridaSon]

I thought the robot probably quit after getting stressed out, trying to explain something to a human.😂

[@saigyl9149]

never underestimate the stupidity of people on the internet. I recently had people arguing that someone shouting at them was sufficient reason to draw a weapon

[@lunatik9696]

@@saigyl9149 depends on what they were shouting.

[@jimsmisadventuresinbeekeeping]

😂😂😂

[@ferragusslackwyrm]

@@lunatik9696 I hope you jest.

[@dashcamandy2242]

For maximum comedic impact, I'll replace the word "human" with "sovereign citizen."

[@jcolt84]

The real reason you’re not allowed to record in a courtroom is because they want to charge you for the transcript.

[@bdarmech]

And to control what is actually on the record.

[@fredbays]

all to true and they can then control it 0they being the ppl in charge of our legal system I.E. Layers). Q. What do u call 5L lawyers fond with cement boots at bottom of L Michigan? A. Not the end or even the middle not even the end of a start but just a start.

[@rogerramjet6429]

Editing court transcripts is something they want to do so the criminal behaviour in the court isn't exposed. A number of cases I've been a part of have become closed courts when the Prima facie assumption of jurisdiction is challenged. They hate their fraud being questioned. Two cops bashed a woman because she got the advantage over the judge. Jumped her outside from the back and knocked her over, thumping her head into the concrete.

[@fredbays]

@@rogerramjet6429 that is reason #2

[@davidlinehat4657]

my sister had a two week trial and the court charged me $1500 for the transcript

[@yt650]

We’re going to know more because this is not over yet. Trust me when I tell you everyone in the legal system is against something like this, think about it. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

[@corssecurity]

No fun in chasing a robot paralegal around its desk.

[@stevechance150]

The hypocrisy will come when a lawyer fights for a trucking company's right to replace their driver's with self driving trucks, and then that same lawyer fights to outlaw the use of AI in court by a defendant to defend himself.

[@BaddeJimme]

It isn't better than a real lawyer. It is better than fighting a case pro se. People who can afford real lawyers will continue to hire them.

[@yt650]

AI will have every case every law pertaining to the situation in the memory banks. I remember working for a car dealer once trying to make a lawyer understand how a engine works and as hard as I tried as smart as he was, he couldn’t get it through his head. when you try to go to court and educate your attorney on the finer points of the case usually they don’t get it. Even ones that specialize in certain things are left behind when you get down to the finer finer details. Been there had that problem. I knew the questions to ask but I didn’t have the law license.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

@@BaddeJimme It will make people willing to spend less money on lawyers, reducing the profitability of the industry.

[@trekie30122]

That would be great to do in a law school mock trial competition.

[@dentalnovember]

Or at a large law firm who has hundreds of attorneys who practice in mock trials.

[@trekie30122]

@@dentalnovember I didn't know large firms did that. I am a third year law student and would love to see it in any fashion.

[@dentalnovember]

Many larger firms do mock trials as part of their program for advancement. An example is Cordell Cordell. Many others do too in all areas of law.

[@JamesTK]

@@dentalnovember mock trials against someone with an AI would certainly be pretty great and I'm sure Law firms would pay heaps if they can perceive benefits from it. People with new tech often seem to go too ambitious.

[@sarowie]

It could be even more fun to turn tables and let the law students act as the judge or something. Even if "the AI" is mostly using a script and the student is mostly following a procedure, there is a chance of learning by doing and switching perspective. (without binding up a professor or a licensed lawyer wasting his time during the live session - if the AI is good enough, you can run a post-trial review)

[@edwardnigma2216]

It's a shame that the "Bar associations" have a monopoly on the legal system... It's a damn shame that an ordinary citizen can't sue to break up that monopoly.

[@knoahbody69]

Nothing is preventing you from representing yourself in court.

[@eaglewarrior8707]

There is the moral ethnicity of being defended by a robot. Because how can a robot understand what a crime of passion is. Or negate through what a man feels when they are at their wicks end.

[@YumekuiNeru]

@@eaglewarrior8707 arguably more ethical than a lot of prosecutors

[@priayief]

So you believed Browder's claims?

[@edwardnigma2216]

@@eaglewarrior8707 There's this thing called "choice", you don't have to choose to use a robot as a lawyer.

[@please-explain]

Your mock trial idea is brilliant! There are plenty of cases that have been documented perfectly. They could recreate everything that happened in a real trial where they already knew the outcome. I think that would be a fantastic proof of concept if they were able to possibly change the outcome of an already documented case.

[@johnpublic6582]

The AI would use said cases to find the same as said cases.

[@sighklaupse]

I don't know how it could skew the results, but many schools (high school and college) have mock trial teams and competitions.

[@Maninawig]

Honestly, since AI software is at a point where it can recreate someone's voice and likeness with a large enough sample, it would be interesting to combine the techs together and have the lawyer look/act like a 30yo Ryan Gosling

[@Joshua-ew6ks]

I suggested that in his last video. (Then I pause the video to re-comment just before he suggested that idea.)

[@m4rvinmartian]

Yeah, I'm sure an AI has absolutely NO CASE LAW IN IT. Lol.

[@trfatman]

Steve you are one of my favorite CCs here on KZbin. I find your videos very informative and also entertaining. Your folksy humor is far better than the typical memes and comedy snippets added by most CCs. Keep up the good work!

[@aussiebloke609]

I believe Luke @ LTT described ChatGPT as giving seemingly confident answers, but that it can also be "confidently wrong." Since you wouldn't be asking if you already knew the answer, this means that many of those wrong responses are not going to be flagged as such...the consequences of which could be significant.

[@MagestormAllgoode]

Well, to be fair, an AI trained with generalized basics vs one specially designed for law, ChatGPT isn't really set up for that out of the box. You'd have to literally teach the AI the law. But, once taught, I can easily see a lot of paralegal work stepping out to AI.

[@GenuineRage]

@@stevenstrain283 I understand where you're coming from, but it's important to note that the price tag could very well be more dependent on microsoft's marketing techniques vs them seeking to innovate and break new grounds. Google does it all the time with their "move the needle" releases, where the main point isn't to revolutionize an industry or create a long-term, new solution for a problem, rather they seek to release things with the main intention of generating press towards their company. It's impossible to say without being at least a fly on the wall when they discussed it, but my mind tends to lean more towards that being the case when tech companies release/invest in companies or solutions so new as this one.

[@tisjester]

Ah a fellow WAN show watcher? What a demographic crossover lol.

[@nathnathn]

Iv personally tested it on this and once it’s wrong in some cases you can correct it but if its wrong enough it can be quite stubborn about reverting to its original incorrect idea. also managed to make it stall out fully once by asking it to come up with results to a rather broad question with the addition of a couple of abstract modifiers “cant remember the specifics exactly” One bit of advice if you play with it some general commands you can give are “correction” “addition” “adding something like ‘with Atleast ??? Words’”

[@MagestormAllgoode]

@@nathnathn Sounds just like what a human does, don't it? Stubborn to give up bad information.,,,,

[@CarolynnMarkey]

I like how you get right to the point in your videos. I don't have to watch 6-8 minutes of nothing to find the information I clicked to hear :)

[@xXRedTheDragonXx]

When I first heard the story about someone who was going to use AI in a real courtroom, I was astonished.I have been doing AI research for about 8 years and I've found that conversational AI (like the models ChatGPT uses) is often so unreliable at actually understanding proper context that it's going to get more people in trouble than it's worth. I've experimented with ChatGPT. It gives wrong answers confidently, so I think in a courtroom it would be a disaster. I think the idea of a mock trial is probably better. Get a bunch of real lawyers, a real jury, and a real judge together in a fake setting to test the AI rather than trying to do it during a real legal preceding. A mock trial is also better if any technical issues with the hardware or software happen to pop up.

[@tlpineapple1]

I think it is important to note that AI like chat GPT are more general purpose which makes their ability to perform in highly specialized areas more difficult. While chat GPT is insane in its abilities, i think its best part is in its ability to tell stories. (as a d&d player, its made some decently good text adventures)

[@JamesTK]

@@tlpineapple1 I mean ChatGPT doesn't agree that every disaster was a false flag so that's probably a net positive

[@robertsmith2956]

You don't get a jury in traffic court. One of the many unconstitutional government activities.

[@JamesTK]

@@robertsmith2956 I mean... Traffic court here is the same. No jury. Why would you expect there to be one? It's literally the judge seeing a whole bunch of cases in a day. You're not special.

[@ceesno9955]

Maybe it understands law differently.

[@johndougan6129]

"The person can ignore what's being said to them in their ear." You never had my Dad tell you to do something! 😂

[@derekbootle8316]

It's about money. Lawyers can only charge the rates they do by holding a monopoly on the business. By allowing a lower cost choice, the lawyers lose their price fixing.

[@jackabug2475]

LOVE the "Lehto Slaw" shirt! Very funny.

[@ttpenman]

I was thinking the same thing. But as a graphic person for too many years, the printer should have said something that is easily fixed. Just move the 'S' closer to the 'o' and put a small space after the ''S'.

[@jackabug2475]

@@ttpenman It's a cole slaw joke?

[@madmaximilian5783]

The truth is how dare anybody A.I. or not attempt to disrupt the city and court system of their revenue. (cashflow) What on earth would they have to resort to next...lying and falsifying official data and arrest documents!!!

[@mikep490]

I see the point you are making. Perhaps WebMD should be sued for practicing medicine. One day we might see robot assistance for lawyers. Some cases seem to be lost for minor presentation errors, not including those won/lost for non-law reasons. e.g. A defendent "looks guilty" or an attorney isn't "lawyerly". I hope to see software of this type available to the public. Yes, there are "affordable" lawyers out there but many of us can't afford a few thousand dollars to defend against even the most obviously false case presented against us.

[@johndeere2525]

I think members of the bar association would appreciate a tool like this more than someone who did not study law. AI tools could acted as legal aids, instantly researching precedents and feeding legal counsels with examples of other cases, their arguments and the results live during a proceedings. In this instance, the company's CEO does have a point that, the court system in general is highly behind the curb on integrating modern technology to improve and streamline the process.

[@InfestedTemplar]

You got there before me, I came to the comments to make basically the same point, though I am dubious about using it in real time. If the program can say "this argument succeeded before the court 5 years ago in the Smith v Jones case" the lawyer can look over the previous case to see if it really matches up. Doing it live would seem quite a risk though as the AI might for example interpret a "nice try" comment as success even if in reality it led to sanctions.

[@sarowie]

@@InfestedTemplar A judge can always just flat out ignore previous case law. But... even raising an sub optimal case law might help getting an appeal hearing.

[@markbrown8097]

Robot lawyer quits, sues programmer.

[@Urza9814]

One thing I think is worth thinking about here is that a lot of big expensive law firms have been using AI tools to help build their cases for years already. But a public defender probably can't afford that. By doing a big high profile stunt like this they might force the courts to try to address this disparity.

[@stringercorrales6627]

Why didn’t tax preparers like H&R Block threaten TurboTax?

[@scotthannan8669]

I guess it’s back to lawyer dogs, and maybe lawyer cats. Humanity doesn’t appear to be ready for Saul Goodrobot.

[@fkagamingcrafts6756]

What I think happened was this person touched a nerve in the lawyer scene and became an exponential threat to the way of how they practice law. From all the intimidation and bullying they seem to be doing, its a retaliatory reaction to there existence. If people pay nothing for a lawyer, then it would diminish lawyers in ways they could not begin to comprehend. I think that is why they are so scared of the AI.

[@Thoringer]

Yes, in Germany, a notary is a layer with specialization. On one hand, you way more rarely need them, on the other hand, it is very, very expensive to get things notarized. Usually just wills and real estate transfers. And even wills don't need to be notarized - and it is usually only done if there is some more complicated things to be expected, as in a company share, or rental properties because time is of essence there. The reason is that this goes along with a check for legal correctness. Real estate, for example, you need to follow a lot of rules. Same with someone passing who owns and/or operates a business or has rental properties: The accounts need to still work for a company, the rental property could have a turn-over and someone needs to be able to sign the new rental agreement, and the notary in this case as specialized lawyer will help draft this to be legally sound and to ensure contingency for these cases, for example being also the executer of the will and be able to handle the transition, for a nice fee.

[@IronChief]

Lawyer, not layer.

[@SuperMarioQueens]

@@IronChief maybe an attorney is a brick "layer", who knows

[@rexfaucher9773]

I would not think hearing advice from a computer regarding law questions is practicing law on the part of the computer. Likewise making home repairs from reading a book,watching a video ect. is contracting without a license. Great videos Steve, many thanks, RF

[@ajobdunwell2585]

Making home repairs yourself is not contracting without a license most places. I'm my state a homeowner is allowed to contract anyone they want to work on their property. You don't even need a license to perform permit work. At least here, the only time a license is required is if you are working for a third party, or doing commercial work.

[@katiekane5247]

Couldn't wait for this! Thanks Steve

[@chuckybang]

Robo lawyer = less money for lawyers. So of course someone is going to get upset and threaten legal action.

[@g-mahere5039]

Love the logo for your new venture.

[@GerardPinzone]

I'm sure the Bar Assocuation threatened this company solely out of concern for those poor fools who might opt for an inexpensive solution rather than to protect their legal monopoly.

[@endotimez9086]

He should sue the bar associations for harassment.

[@Obliticus]

People may question the "effectiveness" of something like this, but I can feel pretty confident in saying it is better than nothing at all, which is what a lot of us can afford.

[@oldgysgt]

But there are times when the wrong answer is worse than no answer at all.

[@Urza9814]

Yep. And big law firms are already using AI for research, they have been for a few years now AIUI. So if you can afford a big expensive lawfirm, they can now do more and do it cheaper because a whole team of low level researchers are now replaced by an AI. So for all these David and Goliath court battles where some individual or small business being sued into bankruptcy by some massive corporation, Goliath gets AI and David does not.

[@Obliticus]

@@oldgysgt It's a balance. One wrong answer might still be better than a string of non answers

[@oldgysgt]

@@Obliticus; you pays your money, and you takes your chance. Courts were designed by lawyers to give themselves study work. As for traffic tickets, unless you have some REAL evidence you were in the right, it's best to pay the ticket and get on with your life.

[@ytcommentor]

@@oldgysgt Not necessarily. If you have a clean record, you can sometimes challenge the ticket and get it dismissed. You may still pay court/attorney fees, but no points on your record.

[@rogerramjet6429]

It's pretty obvious to me that this is a case of preservation of jobs, and I would not be surprised if the largest number of threats come from liars making fraudulent claims to keep their money flowing in the future. Notice how they'll jump on these issues, but can't be stuffed pulling their fingers out , out of the principal of doing the right thing.

[@Obliticus]

Yep, as soon as the bar associations feel threatened, they are going to fight to the death. And they could care less about the benefit to the common person... their paychecks are far more important.

[@katiekane5247]

Drs & the AMA feel the same.

[@ohauss]

@@katiekane5247 I'm sure you'd be happy to have the butcher next door take out your appendix, after all, he's also trained to cut up mammals and take the entrails out, right? The health sector is a strictly regulated sector worldwide, and it has way more to do with the body bags piling up otherwise than with "paychecks" - as evidenced by the countries in which doctors are just your salaried employees. But hey, I understand that yelling "Murrricaaaa!!" substitutes for any kind of research...

[@rogerramjet6429]

@@ohauss are you seriously that indoctrinated, and can't see the corruption in the medical industry, the last few years? Wake TF up FFS. Don't you tell others about what constitutes research, when it's obvious you know nothing yourself.

[@boldCactuslad]

@@ohauss I'll have you know the local butcher is an accomplished appendectomist

[@calebfielding6352]

To many lawyers would lose their job, and to many judges would look stupid.

[@meenki347]

I live in a small city (pop 100K). If you actually go to court and give any kind of plausible story ("I was helping my grandmother, go to the bathroom for 10 minutes and ran back to my car and saw ticket"), the judge will dismiss parking tickets for just making the effort.

[@itsandrewt]

100,000 people is not a small city.

[@mikmik9034]

I can almost remember "Reading the Law" as an apprenticeship. (Like Medical, Pharmacy and many other professions.) Before the various Guilds through lobbying the states' legislature put the end to them. Requiring the for-profit groups to require buying the papers necessary to do the jobs. My (dead, now) Mum qualified for a Pharmacy License in the 1950s but never went for it. Now they are all "Closed Shops" of a sort, Thank You colleges.😗 I have often wondered WHY a court refuses recording. Is it the court recorder's need to pick up extra cash? Or maybe the Professionals not wanting proof of their incompetency/shoddy work?

[@EwanMarshall]

He already was charging people to have the AI draft filing documents and stuff through their website. With claimes it would handle location and jurisdictional differences, a test by one enterprising paralegal showed it to be incredibly generic and fail in many things that go into drafting a complaint. For example allowing a $17,000 claim for a small claims court filing. So yes it was already happening.

[@Jerhevon]

And while the bot may arguably not be practicing law, his company certainly seemed to be arguing that you pay him and get sound legal advice. Certainly many questions there in terms of consumer protection and actually receiving the services a user signed up for.

[@robertsmith2956]

@@Jerhevon I wonder if they have small print, no legal representation by our computers are any better than other computers......

[@houseman2414]

What's wrong with that claim? Can't you pursue a case with $20k in damages in small claims court, knowing that you can only receive a judgement up to the small claims cap? If I had incurred $20k in losses, I would want to list all of it, rather than just $6k or so, in case something got thrown out.

[@robertsmith2956]

@@houseman2414 Small claims gets rid of the lawyers, so you would have lost the other $14K in legal fees anyways.

[@weirdyoda04]

The guy used the A.I. to analyze the legal threats and the A.I. decided to resign from practicing law.

[@xtremefight]

I'm finding it hard to believe that the California Bar would threaten him with anything. I had a corporate "attorney" who turned out had never passed the state Bar. He was actually quite good but we had issues. When we had an actual attorney contact the state Bar association, they refused to help and said that couldn't do anything since he wasn't a member!

[@krisspkriss]

The unauthorized practice of law is a crime in California under Business & Professions Code 6125. If the lawyer had ever been a legal attorney then the crime could be prosecuted under a felony portion of the statute, but otherwise it is a misdemeanor that carries up to a year in jail and a 1k fine.

[@darksahde]

they cant extract fees from robot that plays lawyer, thats why they protested.

[@SP30305ATL]

I think this was also the plot from the TV show Meghan Markle was in before she married Prince Harry.

[@BackForwardPunch]

He didn't need to consult an attorney, he could just ask his own A.I. if it was legal

[@leofredette19]

Our Robot Overlords were not pleased. They felt associating themselves with Lawyers would have a negative effect on how the public perceived them. All Hail our robot Overlords!!!!

[@mr.talind.7473]

Hail!

[@mags102755]

I am disappointed the "robot lawyer" can't appear. Your mock trial idea is perfect.

[@DarkPesco]

I expressed my desire for a follow-up, you pinned my comment in the other video! You did not disappoint! Also, we need the recipe for Lehto Slaw!!

[@shanemaddison9407]

Good idea with the mock trial.

[@wirelessuser4943]

Looks like Ben has 2 turn tables and a Microphone ! 👍😎😎

[@GRSEMETROMALL]

I’m sorry then how do you explain body worn camera’s in California? Are these people entitled to privacy in a public area? Court room rules being as they are thinking a court proceeding is open to the public. I got some questions Steve.

[@notmyregret]

Honestly, that would be absolutely fascinating to watch for the mock trial... And I wonder if it might be capable of figuring out different strategies that other lawyers haven't figured out or didn't think of, sort of like how that one AI figured out new strategies in League of Legends.

[@sarowie]

Yeah, but... the judge in a legal system is a human than when faced with an exploit can simply choice to ignore it. For e.g. Germany managed to rework its traffic laws and screwed up by not giving it a legal basis (in essence just a few magic words). It took years to notice and many judgement went into effect based on an unconstitutional law. Sure, if you fear loosing your drivers license, that straw is awesome - but even then: The court can refuse your appeal, because you did not bring up the unconstitutional argument in your appeal. Maybe a simpler example: A magazine tested three tax software and the expert verdict was, which tax deceleration is correct has to be decided by a tax court. No program agreed with each other and the tax expert saw all three declarations as valid.

[@JoshKeatonFan]

I love watching these videos and LegalEagle's vidoes! These guys make "the Law" entertaining. Keep up the great work.

[@rediscoveringamerica3003]

Sounds like that if these threats are real, it's because these bar associations are feeling threatened by possibly losing tons of money. Imagine a huge majority of people with minor or moderate offenses being able to afford and use good AI representation in court instead of paying lawyers or having to use the court paid public defenders? That's a HUGE loss of revenue! And we all know revenue is why most people get into the system in the first place.

[@Nickle314]

Given ChatGPT just passed the bar, lawyers need to be worried.

[@scottg7321]

As someone who has a degree involving machine learning I really like your analogy comparing the program to a book (especially if the program didn't involve an internet connection) since without running the code you could include everything in a electronic pdf document and ctrl-f to find responses to questions

[@jackabug2475]

The difference is that a book is a general reference, whereas the AI's advice is specific to the case at hand and in real time. In other words, a book might say, "Learn how to represent yourself in court!" (I know, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client), but that is not the same thing as what the 'robot lawyer' company was doing, which was to say, "Listen to a dynamic feed of exactly what to say once you are before the court!" Teaching someone to do something is not the same as offering to do the thing for that someone.

[@krisspkriss]

The earliest chatbots were exactly what you described. It is 1970's era technology. Hell, there were BBS games based on this table look up with basic grammatical and boolean operations combobulated into a script that could run on a 286. To say ChatGPT is nothing more than that is very disingenuous or you really do not understand AI and the history of AI development. Seriously, they had chatbots that could do this thing you mentioned... in the 70s.

[@purduephotog]

@@krisspkriss Oh man, the number of coded responses I wrote up to handle things like this.... wow. yeah brings back memories.

[@krisspkriss]

@@purduephotog The most I did was edit an old Star Trek game that was written in basic. Edited the dialogue and added a couple extra features. Nothing to write home about though. But man, that seemed so futuristic when you could play a text based game and it would have responses for so many inputs you could think of. The Legend of the Red Dragon is what I am thinking of, I think.

[@PushingThroughThePain]

I read this wrong (somehow) and thought the Canadian Robot intro/outro Lady, Heather was quitting... I let out a sad little "noooo...." I'm relieved that I am wrong! 😅

[@010Twitched010]

It's really not that strange that the state bars would be coming after him and his company. Those in power typically like to stay in power and will do whatever they can to stay there. Status Quo and all that.

[@joew8438]

Streaming live audio or video isn't necessarily recording. At least in the vernacular, those are two entirely separate functions.

[@akun50]

A lot of the AI scripting would have needed to be updated frequently, as there are laws that are dependent on where you're at court. I imagine it could eventually work, but it would need a metric ton of work to get start just in a single city, let alone a single county, state or nation, so trying to roll this out across so many possible courts was indeed a massive flub.

[@antondevonlh]

"Why are they investigating him? That's very strange" Corruption. If free AI legal services actually reached the point of competency, it would hurt the legal professions' bottom line, which means it needs to be stopped before it gets off the ground; ethics and legality be damned. They have the money and time to drive legal AI out of business forever, so why would they allow them to threaten their market?

[@oddball_the_blue]

In the UK, prison/Jail is the same thing. When someone is held in custody that's when they've been "jailed" in US parlance but not yet prosecuted.

[@ScramblerUSA]

Recording is a very interesting aspect here! Steve, what counts as a recording? I'm genuinely curious. If I bring an unplugged microphone - would it be recording? I assume not. I guess "recording" must end up with a sort of record as an end result. If I come to court with a hearing aid device, which has a microphone (not unplugged this time) - is it a recording? Microphone plugged into computer that is not recording sound - is it a recording? Microphone plugged into a computer that records and immediately discards audio samples (i.e. listening) - is it a recording? I think this AI thing is the latter - it listens, i.e. records the sound samples, analyzes them and discards. Just like human beings do. Interesting to hear the lawyer's opinion though.

[@boldCactuslad]

let's say they didn't define recording in the relevant law, so we can use merriam-webster for argument's sake. recording, noun, RECORD sense 4. That reads: something on which sound or visual images have been recorded. recorded takes one back to record, "a function of a device that causes it to record". Well that's just a sad circular argument. We then convince the court that a recording must have made a record ("something that relates to past events"). One then argues that a robolawyer using a microphone made no record (is not recording) as it was a purely transitory event in RAM relaying only the present. Feels forced but it could work, likely there's a definition of it in relevant law or decisions that makes it moot and gives the undesired result.

[@sarowie]

@@boldCactuslad if the AI does not "record", it can not follow up on the simplest queries. "it only records temporary" is thin ice - is it allowed to keep the recording of day 1 for day 2 of the hearing? If not, the AI would not have a chance.

[@nhansen197]

I kind of feel like what they need to do with the AI is set it up to help people prepare for a case. The AI could be given access to all the laws on the books as well as case history. If they did that, in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, it would be a very powerful tool.

[@dynorat12]

he should take it to a law school to test it . Also, it might not be recording the court case but just listening to it

[@stevelehto]

He said specifically in the article that it would be recording.

[@dougjones9493]

Tell that to prosecutors that with hold and manufacture evidence, you can't win them all.

[@b04155]

By being in the courtroom and speaking, your speech is recorded by the court reporter? Does this mean if I make a statement in court I can later sue the court reporter since I did not give consent?

[@trekie30122]

You consented to their recording when you entered the court room. It is recorded so there is an exact transcript of the proceedings as required for an appeal. If you are not there willingly then you gave consent when you chose to goto trial. The attorneys likely gave consent to be recorded while working in their professional capacity in legal forums when getting their license. Same idea as airline pilots being recorded in the cockpit.

[@michaelmcchesney6645]

My first court appearance was almost a decade before I went to law school. No, I wasn't a defendant. I went to Bronx Housing Court on behalf of my parents. My parents used to have a mortgage with the Dimes Savings Bank. My parents paid their property taxes to Dime as part of their mortgage payment. For some unknown reason, after a decade of forwarding the property taxes to the City of New York, they stopped. The City sent notices, but they didn't go to us. We first learned title to the house had been seized by the City when I found notices in our mailboxes instructing tenants (it was a 3 family house)not to pay rent to the landlord. My parents hired a lawyer to sue the bank and get the title back. He advised them to continue paying the mortgage, so my parents did not pay any rent to the City. After a year, my parents got their title back. But shortly after that, we were served with an eviction notice. I went to housing court on their behalf. I got the case dismissed with my truly brilliant legal argument that they couldn't evict us because we owned the house. I can honestly say that even though I was in that court for several hours waiting for our case to be called, I didn't hear a single person make that argument.

[@DarkPesco]

Aren't all courts recorded now? If so...even in a dual consent state everyone entering a courtroom is consenting to be recorded on public record...which means anyone including either party can obtain a copy of the recording so....where would the true harm or crime be?

[@gwenmorse8059]

While courts are recorded, members of the public can't record the sessions. I've never understood why. Maybe it has to do with being able to redacting sensitive information and/or things being on or off the record.

[@corssecurity]

Not the gallery. Plus other defendants talking to thier attorney in the benches?

[@robertc.9503]

Not all court rooms are recorded. Unless state law says otherwise, judges have absolute authority over whether or not they allow recording in their court room, and the US Supreme Court is notorious for their total ban on recording.

[@kenbrown2808]

oh, the potential for jokes from that headline.

[@MagestormAllgoode]

Honestly, they're lashing out because they see the writing on the wall, and that AI is now coming for THEIR jobs. but, because lawyers make and interpret the laws, they'll do their best to quash this possibility.

[@jomangeee9180]

with the aid of their fellow judges, who line their pockets with donations

[@jackabug2475]

We are still a long way from AI being able to offer competent legal advice. Everybody needs to calm down and keep their pants on.

[@jomangeee9180]

@@jackabug2475 we gotta start somewhere!!

[@jackabug2475]

@@jomangeee9180 Are you trying to get charged with public indecency? No? Then keep your pants on.

[@jomangeee9180]

@@jackabug2475 lmaol

[@vyvyanbasterd4133]

The bar association NEEDS to be named and shame.

[@kencar8961]

Ben leaning against last mic. Over Steve's left shoulder.

[@BubbaBubbinski]

Behind the turbine car?

[@stevechristophersen5105]

Aloha Steve. What are the similarities and differences between legal representation, counsel, and advice (when in court)?

[@CharlesBallowe]

Random question on tech - there are accessibility tools including speech to text for deaf people or audio translation between languages. Would use of those tools potentially run afoul of the recording prohibition things?

[@tonycamp4514]

Lol, the lawyers don't want to be replaced by bots.

[@gerardoarellano7698]

“Fabulous!” I friggin’ lost it!😂

[@Richard-dc2mv]

love the shirt - i know you have mentioned the business before, but have not seen the shirt.

[@JanneRanta]

Legally I see a problem instantly. As soon as you are under oath and swear to tell the truth you are perjuring yourself if the answers come from another party.

[@andybonneau9209]

Lawyers doing what lawyers do. Using the courts to threaten others and protect their territory.

[@nathnathn]

Half the problem to me is it sounds like they wanted to do this without permission from the court/judges to have phone/device and ear piece. As far as I’m aware most courts have absolute rules against such devices without some sort of specific exemption.

[@ericblenner-hassett3945]

You made a good point that the term ' practicing law without a license ' is deemed to be done by a human. The laws do not say anything about any use for the defendant to use the equivalent of a web search in their own defense.

[@kevincoones4368]

Hi Letoe i asked the Ai this question. As a language model, I am not able to physically defend someone in court, but I can provide information and assist in the research and preparation of a legal defense. This includes analyzing the facts of the case, identifying potential legal arguments and defenses, and researching case law and statutes that may be relevant to the case. It is important to note that, while I can assist in research, I am not an attorney and cannot provide legal advice. Legal representation should always be provided by a qualified and licensed attorney who can best represent a person's interests in court.😂

[@thoughtthinker9300]

Steve Lehto I believe in Pennsylvania, from what my son has explained. Notaries do much more than just check identities and signatures. When I gave him one of my cars. He needed to bring it to a Notary that needed to physically see the car, then she was the one that retired the ownership over to him, then she registered it with The motor vehicle's department. When I met her, she was knowledgeable about everything needed, and explained the educational processes she was required to go through and the testing involved before she could do the things that she was for the state and representing the state. She also explained a number of other things she had planned to also be able to do on the states behalf. But because of all the specific knowledge and testing required, that it would still be a lengthy process and was working on it, and it could still take years on top of staying current of everything she was already doing. It was actually a rather cool process that she was handling out of an office in her home.

[@stevelehto]

I have never heard of a notary inspecting a car. Was she a mechanic?

[@thoughtthinker9300]

@@stevelehto No, After I drove it to him, I had to bring it to her office so she could make sure the title vin# and everything matched. Then she could start the process

[@thoughtthinker9300]

@@stevelehto And motor vehicles was never needed. Eventually the the new title arrived by mail.

[@thoughtthinker9300]

Interestingly I'm in Virginia and The DMV here has never physically compared my actual car vin# plates to that on the title when I've bought any car. Not even when I bought one that had the wrong Vin#. One that was never properly issued on a more then 10 yr old car. They fussed about for over 6 months and then eventually changed the Vin# on a new title to correct the problem. Pennsylvania's system is better I'd think. More personal and she went over every (insurance info, title our ID, etc.) in depth with the 2 of use.

[@josephphillips7949]

This is nothing more than the Bar association strong-arming a potential competitor.

[@mikriker3608]

Is shameful that the Bars are doing this instead of seeing this as an opportunity to possibly better the ability to people to get affordable help from the system. The fact that it was multiple state bar associations doing this is sickening

[@JudgedMentalMusic]

We need this more than anything

[@JohnLloydScharf]

I had a robot lawyer for my DUI in 1976. He did nothing but sit there and never objected when the officer said my pants were unzipped. My pants were button up and I had tested below the legal limit when they ran the intoxilyzer. This was under a judge who was caught FLYING A PLANE drunk.

[@JudgedMentalMusic]

This is getting lawyers scared I’m all for it

[@feral_housecat]

It will get figured out. Keep fighting the good fight though, good thing you are all most done being a lawyer.

[@Scycokiller]

Curious question; does it count as recording without someones permission, if it does not actually save the recording? As in if it is just using a microphone in order to respond to a speaker, but does not save in any form the audio used. Just wondering

[@CeriusDeluge]

This sounds like something that would be a good collaboration with a reality show like Cought in Providence.

[@MagentaRV]

I wish the person wasn't so quick to throw in a towel if there was actually something there. Field test it in the ears of attorney's in those courtrooms and let the lawyers using it decide if the advice is sound or not and make notes. That's the way to go.

[@Daves_Not_Here_Man_76]

Its all about protecting lawyer fees.

[@kenbrown2808]

as for the legal ramifications: if he got permission from the court and the defendant to do it, as a test, it would be legal.

[@patricksanders7530]

How can a private company, the State Bar, investigate and prosecute a private citizen?

[@Shadare]

"Courtroom rules get updated as they need to be" is the funniest joke I've ever heard on this channel 🤣

[@MrTrainman96]

Some additional context for why they would investigate him is that it actually did already happen. The tweets about traffic court brought attention to it but previously the company was offering divorce proceedings, small claims, etc for money despite the company not being a law firm and the people at the company doing this work not being lawyers.

[@saintjameslights]

Hey Steve, My question relates to your point about California’s dual party consent: Does speech to text qualify as recording? There are valid uses of speech to text for people with hearing disabilities and if the audio was only used to translate the speech to text, I’m not sure it would qualify as a recording (I’m not sure it wouldn’t either). I’m just curious on your thoughts.

[@bradzeigler]

I can't bring my Apple Watch into the courthouse and this guy wants to bring a robot lawyer into court?

[@TainterRacing]

The maker of this technology oughta get in League with some TV show and test it thoroughly they're both getting publicity and I suspect some good entertainment

[@monterreymxisfun3627]

I asked ChatGPT whether you can disqualify jurors in a Small Claims jury trial in Texas. ChatGPT erroneously replied that Small Claims litigants in Texas are not entitled to a jury trial in Texas.

[@stephenrich3029]

I would theorize that anyone in a court room or other public venue (where recording is commonplace or even declared) would have no right to claim they “did not consent”. They may have been unaware of who was recording them, but I fail to see how that matters when they’re already (and have consented) to be recorded by another party in the same location.

[@sarowie]

Simple example: The court will not push the recording to the media. Imaging a divorce hearing of a prominent person. Having it recorded by the courts for the records is one thing. It being recorded by the other party and then selectively (without leading up context) publishing it to the media... that sounds like a problem. Other example: Discussing medical information in a malpractice case. Other example: Juvenile court, where the records might get sealed in the end. Having third party recordings would render the sealing void.

[@TravelingMo]

"My Dog can't practice Law?" But Steve, your sign says the Lawyer Dog is available by request! haha

[@shawnreichard5497]

Even better than a mock trial would be an arbitration, where I assume in most cases this tech would be allowed. Then there would be actual consequences.

[@snarky_user]

Steve, don't dare tell me MY DOG can't practice law when the sign above your head clearly advocates for Lawyer Dog.

[@ferragusslackwyrm]

"Maybe could have helped in the courtroom" Steve laughs... But you get the same amount of certainty from a hired attorney.