First AI-powered robot lawyer won't be used in court due to jail threats

[midian182]

In brief: Bad news for those excited to see an AI-powered 'robot lawyer' advising defendants inside a courtroom: DoNotPay will not be using its artificial intelligence to argue a legal case in a court of law next month after the startup's CEO was threatened with jail.

News that an AI would represent a defendant fighting a speeding ticket in court on February 22 arrived earlier this month. It would have involved an iPhone equipped with an AI app being placed in the defendant's pocket. Combined with an earpiece and smart glasses, the defendant would have been able to record court proceedings while the AI provided arguments that would hopefully win the case.

The system relies on AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci, writes NPR. DoNotPay already uses AI-generated form letters and chatbots to dispute parking tickets, lower bills, and other grievances.

The idea brought plenty of interest and wasn't without controversy. It would have been the first time someone was defended in court by an AI, and would have marked another step in artificial intelligence's advancement.

Joshua Browder, DoNotPay's CEO, said that multiple state bar associations threatened the company over its plans, with prosecution and prison time put forward as possible consequences of using the so-called robot lawyer. One state bar official noted that the unauthorized practice of law is a misdemeanor in some states, punishable by up to six months in county jail.

Good morning! Bad news: after receiving threats from State Bar prosecutors, it seems likely they will put me in jail for 6 months if I follow through with bringing a robot lawyer into a physical courtroom. DoNotPay is postponing our court case and sticking to consumer rights:

— Joshua Browder (@jbrowder1) January 25, 2023

"Even if it wouldn't happen, the threat of criminal charges was enough to give it up," he told NPR. "The letters have become so frequent that we thought it was just a distraction and that we should move on."

The State Bar of California would not comment on the DoNotPay case specifically, but it did say it has a duty to investigate possible instances of unauthorized practice of law. It added that there had been a recent surge in poor-quality legal representation that has emerged to fill a void in affordable legal advice.

"They were threatening to charge us with unauthorized practice of law," Browder confirmed. He could have also faced other charges, including interfering with judicial practice.

Browder said that the potential consequences of using a robot lawyer have become a distraction for the company, and it is now focusing on its "bread and butter" of consumer rights. The CEO says DoNotPay has won more than 2 million customer service disputes and court cases on behalf of individuals against institutions and organizations. It also wants to assist people dealing with expensive medical bills, unwanted subscriptions, and issues with credit reporting agencies. Browder also said that the AI lawyer was supposed to help those who can't afford their own representatives in court.

I've been going in pretty hard on @DoNotPay and @jbrowder1 for the past couple of days, and I've had a lot of people defending the service, saying that it could be a real boon to those who can't otherwise afford legal aid.

— Kathryn Tewson (@KathrynTewson) January 24, 2023

Not everyone is happy with DoNotPay's bread-and-butter service. Kathryn Tewson tweeted that it is a "straight-up plug-and-chug document wizard."

Masthead: Francesco Tommasini

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97393-first-ai-powered-robot-lawyer-wont-appear-court.html

 

[gamerk2]

To me, there's a simple solution: Have the bot take and pass the state Bar exam.

There, problem solved.

 

[NewSparrow]

What if the prosecuting team also uses AI? Basically using their own methods against them, Fire against Fire. However not sure where this is eventually going to lead to, if lawyers would be obsolete if it works out.

 

[m4a4]

To me, there's a simple solution: Have the bot take and pass the state Bar exam.

There, problem solved.

Hahahaha, it's not about whether or not the AI would be a competent lawyer. It's about these people not getting paid because of a free (and easy to use) AI lawyer.

There's no chance that they'll let the AI take the test, letalone pass (save for some serious public pressure)...

 

[passwordistaco]

The primary purpose of lawyers is to ensure employment for lawyers.

 

[dangh]

That is how you fight to keep your monopoly running
Nothing mobilizes better than danger of an affordable law advices.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Money is a powerful motivator - threaten to take that away from lawyers and they'll fight tooth and nail.

 

[punctualturn]

As someone that just lost a case thanks to what I think was a rigged trial, I would loved to be represented by an artificial lawyer. Assuming that the code is not compromised like how I feel that the judge and my lawyer were ($$$).

 

[ZedRM]

AI has many uses. Arguing cases in a courtroom is not one of them.

 

[BadThad]

Lawyers, a necessary evil - I personally hate 'em. They've sucked well over $100k out of my pocket over the decades for non-criminal stuff. Anything that threatens their "craft" will be attacked from every angle possible by the hoards of greedy scumbags.

I think this AI idea is excellent, it's not really representing the client when it's just a phone and a ear bud telling the defendant what to say!!! If asked, I'd simply tell the court it's my legal console on the phone. The court system in itself is corrupt and run by lawyers out to get money by any means possible. Justice, pffftttt - rarely!

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

Considering that an advanced AI can store decades of law books and past cases in it's memory and present it on the spot, pretty much sums it up.

 

[yannus]

AI is in the end just a program. Even if so called justice is very corrupt, there's still a chance for a good heart to change the course of an injustice. But if one day programs give the verdicts, it's the individual in control of the program who would decide.

 

[Avro Arrow]

"The State Bar of California would not comment on the DoNotPay case specifically, but it did say it has a duty to investigate possible instances of unauthorized practice of law. It added that there had been a recent surge in poor-quality legal representation that has emerged to fill a void in affordable legal advice."

Perhaps they should be doing something to fill that void. Of course, the United States doesn't give two turds about people who aren't millionaires so I wouldn't hold my breath. DoNotPay could easily fight this in court because the defendant would be the one practicing law. After all, law can only be practiced by human beings and in that context, an AI cannot be considered to be practicing law, authorised or not. You can't prosecute an AI for practicing law if such a thing is impossible under the law.

What DoNotPay needs is actual lawyers to be involved in the programming so that they can sign off on the AI's knowledge of the law.

 

[Hodor]

Hahahaha, it's not about whether or not the AI would be a competent lawyer. It's about these people not getting paid because of a free (and easy to use) AI lawyer.

There's no chance that they'll let the AI take the test, letalone pass (save for some serious public pressure)...

Exactly. There's no bigger mafia than lawyers. They will (legally and illegally) attack any threat of cheap competition. Same as doctors. Law and medical mafia members know their jobs are actually easy to replace by AI, and they also know they are overcharging their clients by the factor of 50. More than drug dealers.

So, sure as hell, they won't allow cheap competition to ruin their successful racket.