5 ms·

I read the same and came to the opposite conclusion. I said: "Yikes. The balls on this guy.": > Some lawyers bristle at clients setting strategic direction.

I read the same and came to the opposite conclusion. I said: "Yikes. The balls on this guy.": > Some lawyers bristle at clients setting strategic direction. They believe there’s a “correct way” to do things, they know it, and they’ll fight you if you disagree. In that case, get different lawyers. The thing is -- there are correct ways to do things in the legal sphere. Litigation is highly professional and highly formal, and has only become more so. While sub rosa it's fine to ask an AI for advice, and to engage it in draft brief writing, summarization to bullets, etc., it's wild not to realize how much of litigation and the law is wrapped up in people and experience and intricate formal processes. Such as this court has local rules, and this judge likes his briefs this length and the arguments just so, this needs to be filed here, stamped by the clerk, and filed again over there. AIs may be exceptionally clever, but they may misunderstand the theatre of a trial. They may overweight the importance of the law and then underweight human factors, like the importance of assigning blame, or the lack of credibility of certain witnesses, or the bad faith of certain actors. AIs may fail to give credence to the ordinary meaning of terms, or fail to emphasize that these are two sophisticated businesses which understand the technical terms. AIs are still very poor at actual "reasoning", that is, a deep consideration of the multitude of ways of looking at any one set of facts and/or words on the page. One area in which this article is entirely right is -- one must manage attorneys, and you must make certain that legal costs don't become leverage against you. But there are points at which you say: Can this guy keep it all straight? Does he know how to be useful to his own defense and then does he know how to get out of his own way?

Marsymars 1y ago
> The thing is -- there are correct ways to do things in the legal sphere. The legal sphere is highly professional and highly formal, and has only become more so. In some ways. OTOH, my wife works in the legal sphere, and after spending most of her career at a small boutique firm before being subsumed by a larger one, she was kinda dismayed to discover that there’s no singular “right way” to do things, and that different lawyers kind all do their own thing in a multitude of different ways.
- mustache_kimono 1y ago
  > different lawyers kind all do their own thing in a multitude of different ways. Agreed. There is no formal processes to the inner workings of firms (but perhaps there should be). What I think the author is saying is: There is no single way to conduct the lawyer-client relationship. Agreed, as well. But what I am saying is: There are certain areas in which the client can be a detriment to himself by ignoring the ways legal processes function. Like -- "I am certain if the judge only hears what I have to say re: X, she will immediately dismiss this frivolous suit. You must tell her about this now. You must file something now." Okay, lawsuits are governed by highly formal processes, and there may be a time and a place for such merits arguments, at certain points in the suit, but this may not be that time. This is the time we talk about process, like jurisdiction, etc.
noworriesnate 1y ago
Lawyers shouldn’t set the direction because they tend to try to minimize liability at the expense of everything else. CPAs shouldn’t set the direction because they tend to want to structure your business in ways that save taxes, at the expense of everything else. If you’re the CEO/President of your company, you should set the direction, using lawyers to know what the liabilities of the different options are and using accountants to know what the different tax implications are. Lawyers and accountants help you make informed decisions, but they should not be deciding the strategy.
ajb 1y ago
Not disagreeing about the risks of AI here. But the thing is, there are correct ways to do things in court. But this guy's strategy was to improve his negotiating position, pre-court. That sounds like it's a lot more to do with assessment of risk, assessment of your adversaries strategy, and business position. Which are all matters that totally aren't solely the province of lawyers. In effect, that means that the lawyers should have been doing what he got the AI to do.
- cogman10 1y ago
  > in court. But this guy's strategy was to improve his negotiating position, pre-court. "The court" generally just means stuff that involves a judge. Not the actual trial. There is no "pre-court" really. Whenever you and the opposing side have a disagreement, a judge will be involved to determine who should do what. That's what filing motions are all about. For example, in a deposition, your lawyer is going to ask the opposing side 1 million questions. While asking those questions their council will pretty frequently say "objection". Each time they do that, they can go back to the judge (court) and fight over whether or not that line of questioning will be admissible into evidence in the trial. The guys strategy is around the motions and briefs filed. It's not infrequent that a judge will ask each side for a brief about the current legal state and why their motion should be granted. That's where mountains of lawyer money can be spent. Every hour they spend researching the caselaw around a motion they get to bill you. But further, strategy involves how often you fight the other side. There is an endless amount of stuff lawyers can argue over which ultimately does not (or barely does) affect the final outcomes. Being able to tell your lawyer "No, don't fight this motion it won't really matter" is where money can be saved.
cogman10 1y ago
The correct procedures are why you (and the OP) need a lawyer in the mix. Strategic direction, though, isn't something that has a correct mechanism. That strategic direction can include things like how hard you want to fight on each motion and if/when you want to try and settle and for how much. Said another way, if you approach a plumber with "I need more hot water" they'll probably try and sell you an industrial tankless water heater with a nice markup. However, if you tell them "I want you to install this water heater that I purchased" then they'll do the work to get it fit in and setup. 1 option will cost you $1000s of dollars more. There is still a correct way to install water heaters, but the stuff related to whether or not you need a new water heater and what kind shouldn't be left up to the plumber. The law is the same way. If you just tell a lawyer "I'm being sued, help me" they can justify putting any amount of time researching case law for your case. Taking a more active role, though, and saying "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" will shortcut a lot of that research time. They'll still have to do some work to validate you aren't giving them garbage to file. And of course they are still expected to follow all the local rules. But the actual billable hours will be massively reduced because they aren't doing nearly as much research.
- mustache_kimono 1y ago
  > Taking a more active role, though, and saying "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" will shortcut a lot of that research time. Taken literally however "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" could be wildly reckless. I think your discussion above amounts to equivocation on the word "strategy". It's fine to set business "strategy". Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. Like -- this is a 12(b)(6) motion, not a motion for summary judgment. We are questioning the sufficiency of the claim on the page, not whether there are genuine issues of material fact. Business strategy is "don't spend gobs of money on this motion" not "file what I tell you."
  - cogman10 1y ago
    > could be wildly reckless Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?". > Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned. It's also their job to bring up to the client "Look, I know you want to file this but in my experience you'd really be better served if you did this instead".
bambax 1y ago
Every expert will tend to miss the forest from the trees because it's their job, and mission, and billing criteria, to find every possible tree and categorize it. But you and I don't care about the trees, we only care about the forest. There's this comedian who tells the story of his grandmother aged 97 who was diagnosed with cancer, and they offered her chemotherapy. She said: what's the point? Are you going to prolong my life for an hour? That makes people laugh, but it's the truth, and it's also, I think, the point of the post. The point of defending a lawsuit is not to be right, and die. It's to survive it.

Marsymars 1y ago

> The thing is -- there are correct ways to do things in the legal sphere. The legal sphere is highly professional and highly formal, and has only become more so. In some ways. OTOH, my wife works in the legal sphere, and after spending most of her career at a small boutique firm before being subsumed by a larger one, she was kinda dismayed to discover that there’s no singular “right way” to do things, and that different lawyers kind all do their own thing in a multitude of different ways.

mustache_kimono 1y ago
> different lawyers kind all do their own thing in a multitude of different ways. Agreed. There is no formal processes to the inner workings of firms (but perhaps there should be). What I think the author is saying is: There is no single way to conduct the lawyer-client relationship. Agreed, as well. But what I am saying is: There are certain areas in which the client can be a detriment to himself by ignoring the ways legal processes function. Like -- "I am certain if the judge only hears what I have to say re: X, she will immediately dismiss this frivolous suit. You must tell her about this now. You must file something now." Okay, lawsuits are governed by highly formal processes, and there may be a time and a place for such merits arguments, at certain points in the suit, but this may not be that time. This is the time we talk about process, like jurisdiction, etc.

noworriesnate 1y ago

Lawyers shouldn’t set the direction because they tend to try to minimize liability at the expense of everything else. CPAs shouldn’t set the direction because they tend to want to structure your business in ways that save taxes, at the expense of everything else. If you’re the CEO/President of your company, you should set the direction, using lawyers to know what the liabilities of the different options are and using accountants to know what the different tax implications are. Lawyers and accountants help you make informed decisions, but they should not be deciding the strategy.

ajb 1y ago

Not disagreeing about the risks of AI here. But the thing is, there are correct ways to do things in court. But this guy's strategy was to improve his negotiating position, pre-court. That sounds like it's a lot more to do with assessment of risk, assessment of your adversaries strategy, and business position. Which are all matters that totally aren't solely the province of lawyers. In effect, that means that the lawyers should have been doing what he got the AI to do.

cogman10 1y ago
> in court. But this guy's strategy was to improve his negotiating position, pre-court. "The court" generally just means stuff that involves a judge. Not the actual trial. There is no "pre-court" really. Whenever you and the opposing side have a disagreement, a judge will be involved to determine who should do what. That's what filing motions are all about. For example, in a deposition, your lawyer is going to ask the opposing side 1 million questions. While asking those questions their council will pretty frequently say "objection". Each time they do that, they can go back to the judge (court) and fight over whether or not that line of questioning will be admissible into evidence in the trial. The guys strategy is around the motions and briefs filed. It's not infrequent that a judge will ask each side for a brief about the current legal state and why their motion should be granted. That's where mountains of lawyer money can be spent. Every hour they spend researching the caselaw around a motion they get to bill you. But further, strategy involves how often you fight the other side. There is an endless amount of stuff lawyers can argue over which ultimately does not (or barely does) affect the final outcomes. Being able to tell your lawyer "No, don't fight this motion it won't really matter" is where money can be saved.

cogman10 1y ago

The correct procedures are why you (and the OP) need a lawyer in the mix. Strategic direction, though, isn't something that has a correct mechanism. That strategic direction can include things like how hard you want to fight on each motion and if/when you want to try and settle and for how much. Said another way, if you approach a plumber with "I need more hot water" they'll probably try and sell you an industrial tankless water heater with a nice markup. However, if you tell them "I want you to install this water heater that I purchased" then they'll do the work to get it fit in and setup. 1 option will cost you $1000s of dollars more. There is still a correct way to install water heaters, but the stuff related to whether or not you need a new water heater and what kind shouldn't be left up to the plumber. The law is the same way. If you just tell a lawyer "I'm being sued, help me" they can justify putting any amount of time researching case law for your case. Taking a more active role, though, and saying "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" will shortcut a lot of that research time. They'll still have to do some work to validate you aren't giving them garbage to file. And of course they are still expected to follow all the local rules. But the actual billable hours will be massively reduced because they aren't doing nearly as much research.

mustache_kimono 1y ago
> Taking a more active role, though, and saying "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" will shortcut a lot of that research time. Taken literally however "this is how I want you to respond to that motion" could be wildly reckless. I think your discussion above amounts to equivocation on the word "strategy". It's fine to set business "strategy". Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. Like -- this is a 12(b)(6) motion, not a motion for summary judgment. We are questioning the sufficiency of the claim on the page, not whether there are genuine issues of material fact. Business strategy is "don't spend gobs of money on this motion" not "file what I tell you."
- cogman10 1y ago
  > could be wildly reckless Could be, which is why you have a lawyer to put guiderails on and give a "are you sure you want to go down this path?". > Telling an attorney what should literally be in his response to a motion, ignores all his/her knowledge about motion practice, the law, and evidence which will be relevant to the question. No, because before a lawyer files the response they have to (well, they should) both read, understand, and verify that it is in fact a valid response to file. Not doing so can get them sanctioned. It's also their job to bring up to the client "Look, I know you want to file this but in my experience you'd really be better served if you did this instead".

bambax 1y ago

Every expert will tend to miss the forest from the trees because it's their job, and mission, and billing criteria, to find every possible tree and categorize it. But you and I don't care about the trees, we only care about the forest. There's this comedian who tells the story of his grandmother aged 97 who was diagnosed with cancer, and they offered her chemotherapy. She said: what's the point? Are you going to prolong my life for an hour? That makes people laugh, but it's the truth, and it's also, I think, the point of the post. The point of defending a lawsuit is not to be right, and die. It's to survive it.