3 ms·

There have been several startups that tried it, and they all immediately ran into hot water and failed. The core problem is lawyers already automate plenty of

There have been several startups that tried it, and they all immediately ran into hot water and failed. The core problem is lawyers already automate plenty of their work, and lawyers get involved when the normal rules have failed. You don't write a contract just to have a contract, you write one in case something goes wrong. Litigation is highly dependent on the specific situation and case law. They're dealing with novel facts and arguing for new interpretations, not milling out an average of other legal works. Also, you generally only get one bite at the apple, there's no do-overs if your AI screws up. You can hold a person accountable for malpractice.

chii 2y ago
> The core problem is lawyers already automate plenty of their work, and lawyers get involved when the normal rules have failed. this is true - and the majority of work of lawyers is in knowing past information, and synthesising possible futures from those information. In contracts, they write up clauses to protect you from past issues that have arisen (and may be potential future issues, depending on how good/creative said lawyer is). In civil suits, discovery is what used to take enormous amounts of time, but recent automation in discovery has helped tremendously, and vastly reduced the amount of grunt work required. I can see AI help in both of these aspects. Now, whether the newer AI's can produce the type of creativity work that lawyers need to do post information extraction, is still up for debate. So far, it doesn't seem like it has reached the required level for which a client would trust a pure ai generated contract imho. I suspect the day you'd trust an AI doctor to diagnose and treat you, would also be the day you'd trust an AI lawyer.