5 ms·

The specific scenario doesn't matter. It's illegal to represent someone else in court if you're not a lawyer. There are a lot of things that you can't get a sec

The specific scenario doesn't matter. It's illegal to represent someone else in court if you're not a lawyer. There are a lot of things that you can't get a second chance at if your lawyer messes up that suing them can't fix. Lawyers and judges also negotiate, which a machine can't do because nobody feels an obligation to cut them some slack. Also now you're tainting case law with machine-generated garbage. Everything about the justice system assumes humans in the loop. You can't bolt on this one thing without denying people justice.

john_the_writer 4y ago
The tricky bit about your comment. "If you're not a lawyer." In this case who's the "You're".
- marmetio 4y ago
  Not tricky at all. If someone is receiving counsel, then someone is giving counsel. Hiding behind a machine adds a pretty minor extra step to identifying the culprits, but does not create ambiguity over whether they are culpable. On the other hand, here's a lawyer who thinks it would not count as legal representation, but hasn't seen the arguments made against it yet. Food for thought. https://youtu.be/r-gvArVKfUM https://youtu.be/r-gvArVKfUM
cwkoss 4y ago
If you can sell a book that helps teach someone how to represent themselves, why can't you sell a person access to a robot that helps teach them how to represent themselves? Why is the robot not "speech"?
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  A book gives legal information, not specific to a certain circumstance or case. If your chatbot is considering the specifics of a case before advising on a course of action, it's probably giving legal advice.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Can a lawyer get away with doing the same thing if, say, they provide all their advice as .epub files? "Why, your honor, these were merely books..." [EDIT] That is, would they be immune from e.g. malpractice if they did this so they "weren't representing" the defendant?
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    If the book was written about a particular case, that seems like specific legal advice. If the book was a generalized "choose your own adventure" where you compose a sensible legal argument from selecting a particular template and filling it in with relevant data - use of the book essentially lets the user find the pre-existing legal advice that is relevant to their situation. Chatbots as a system are arguably a lot more like the latter than the former - its a tool that someone can use to 'legal advise' themselves.
    - marmetio 4y ago
      Are you still referring to the scenario from the article, or a different one where it's a resource you use outside of court? > Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. Also, probably wouldn't matter. The interactive human-ish-like nature might cross the line to being considered as counsel, even if you said it wasn't. See my response to your other comment.
      - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
        By providing the words to say and arguments to make to the court, in response to a specific case or circumstance, DoNotPay was giving protected "legal advice" as opposed "legal information". There is ambiguity to find between legal advice and legal information, but that isn't.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Right, this strikes me as exactly the kind of "I'm not touching you!" argument that basically never works in a court of law. The law's not like code. "Well it's not any different than publishing a book, so this is just free speech and not legal representation"; "OK, cool, well, we both know that's sophist bullshit, judgement against you, next case."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- marmetio 4y ago
  You're still illegally providing legal counsel if you're not a lawyer, or commiting malpractice if you are. Using a machine to commit the same crime doesn't change anything. "Speech" would be like publishing a book about self-representation. "Counsel" would be providing advice to a defendant about their specific case. The machine would be in the courtroom advising the defendant on their trial, so that's counsel.

john_the_writer 4y ago

The tricky bit about your comment. "If you're not a lawyer." In this case who's the "You're".

marmetio 4y ago
Not tricky at all. If someone is receiving counsel, then someone is giving counsel. Hiding behind a machine adds a pretty minor extra step to identifying the culprits, but does not create ambiguity over whether they are culpable. On the other hand, here's a lawyer who thinks it would not count as legal representation, but hasn't seen the arguments made against it yet. Food for thought. https://youtu.be/r-gvArVKfUM https://youtu.be/r-gvArVKfUM

cwkoss 4y ago

If you can sell a book that helps teach someone how to represent themselves, why can't you sell a person access to a robot that helps teach them how to represent themselves? Why is the robot not "speech"?

OkayPhysicist 4y ago
A book gives legal information, not specific to a certain circumstance or case. If your chatbot is considering the specifics of a case before advising on a course of action, it's probably giving legal advice.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Can a lawyer get away with doing the same thing if, say, they provide all their advice as .epub files? "Why, your honor, these were merely books..." [EDIT] That is, would they be immune from e.g. malpractice if they did this so they "weren't representing" the defendant?
- cwkoss 4y ago
  If the book was written about a particular case, that seems like specific legal advice. If the book was a generalized "choose your own adventure" where you compose a sensible legal argument from selecting a particular template and filling it in with relevant data - use of the book essentially lets the user find the pre-existing legal advice that is relevant to their situation. Chatbots as a system are arguably a lot more like the latter than the former - its a tool that someone can use to 'legal advise' themselves.
  - marmetio 4y ago
    Are you still referring to the scenario from the article, or a different one where it's a resource you use outside of court? > Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. Also, probably wouldn't matter. The interactive human-ish-like nature might cross the line to being considered as counsel, even if you said it wasn't. See my response to your other comment.
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      By providing the words to say and arguments to make to the court, in response to a specific case or circumstance, DoNotPay was giving protected "legal advice" as opposed "legal information". There is ambiguity to find between legal advice and legal information, but that isn't.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Right, this strikes me as exactly the kind of "I'm not touching you!" argument that basically never works in a court of law. The law's not like code. "Well it's not any different than publishing a book, so this is just free speech and not legal representation"; "OK, cool, well, we both know that's sophist bullshit, judgement against you, next case."
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
marmetio 4y ago
You're still illegally providing legal counsel if you're not a lawyer, or commiting malpractice if you are. Using a machine to commit the same crime doesn't change anything. "Speech" would be like publishing a book about self-representation. "Counsel" would be providing advice to a defendant about their specific case. The machine would be in the courtroom advising the defendant on their trial, so that's counsel.