We are problem solvers. Nothing is impossible.
© 2022-2023 Lex IT Limited. All rights reserved.
Just under 3 weeks ago it was widely reported that DoNotPay would be sending its very first robot litigator to court to help a defendant argue against his liability to pay speeding tickets. The plan was to have the defendant wear an earpiece to listen to instructions given by the AI litigator on what to say to the judge.
Just under 3 weeks ago it was widely reported that DoNotPay would be sending its very first robot litigator to court to help a defendant argue against his liability to pay speeding tickets. The plan was to have the defendant wear an earpiece to listen to instructions given by the AI litigator on what to say to the judge.
Here is an article which first appeared on USA Today on January 9th.
Naturally this became instant news internationally. On the one hand, litigants became more hopeful that there might finally be an alternative to hiring lawyers to argue their cases in court and incurring substantial legal costs. The IT world was getting ready to train the next AI Rumpole of the Old Bailey. Litigation lawyers were putting in place a defence strategy against the intrusion of artificial intelligence in an arena where traditions rule and advanced technology, if used at all, is assigned a back seat.
On January 25th, Joshua Browder, the CEO of DoNotPay, announced on Twitter that “after receiving threats from State Bar prosecutors”, their AI litigator would not be coming to court after all. The company would focus instead on their original business of protecting consumer rights in disputing fines, medical bills and raising claims against airlines by means of automated forms and letters etc.
Here is an interview which Fast Company conducted with Joshua Browder.
There may be some valid legal reasons which are preventing DoNotPay’s robot litigator from virtually appearing in court and performing the function of a human lawyer. For one thing, he does not have a licence to practise law, and however knowledgeable he may be in the law, he would not qualify for a licence as a non human. However, the advance of legal technology is unstoppable. Many lawyers would have tried Chat GPT by now and many law firms would be developing similar technology inhouse to stay competitive. It is not hard to imagine the scenario where there is a clear disparity between the 2 sides in a courtroom, with one side making use of modern technology to conduct instant legal research and formulate arguments, and the other relying on prepared written scripts of legal submissions. Consumers of legal services will know which legal team to choose, and this team does not have to be a team of 5 lawyers or more. It may simply be one lawyer and a laptop.