What Happens When Computers Replace Attorneys?

Yesterday, I read an interesting article in The AtlanticiLawyer: What Happens When Computers Replace Attorneys?”   The article describes the rise of predictive coding being used in the discovery phase of litigation.  For those of you who are not legal eagles, discovery is essentially when opposing counsel dumps a massive amounts of emails, documents, power points, bank statements, etc in your lap and your job is to sort through it all and find the ones that are relevant to your case.

Predictive Coding allows an attorney to plug in search terms and have the software automatically pull the relevant documents.  The article suggests that predictive coding will eliminate the need for most attorneys.  I agree that as software becomes better at pattern recognition, attorneys will not be needed in the first phase of discovery and other rote tasks, however I don’t think better software will entirely eliminate the need for attorneys for a few reasons:

1.) The interpretation of law is ultimately a value judgment.   Our legal system is designed to be flexible and allow for all sorts of exceptions and based on the facts surrounding each particular situation.  For example, the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantees a person’s right to a jury by one’s peers.  I don’t really see a day when being judged by robots for a crime will become an acceptable substitute for peers.

2.) Law is a dynamic system.  Just as the interpretation of law is a judgment of another individual’s actions, society’s views of what is appropriate changes over time.  At one time, society thought slavery was righteous, then we went through a civil war and did away with slavery, but still allowed segregation, and then we outlawed segregation, to allowing affirmative action.  Software programs are not dynamic enough to keep pace with society’s constantly changing mores and attitudes toward various topics.

3.) Computer programs are really bad at common sense.  A software program is only as effective as the human programmer.  For example, if you were to ask WATSON (the computer that won Jeapordy!) to mediate a custody dispute between two spouses in the middle of a nasty divorce, Watson may be able to pull up all sorts of case law, precedent, and cite statistics about whether or not kids are better off living with the higher earning parent. However, if the kids don’t want to live with their father, because he’s a raging alcoholic with anger issues, then it really won’t matter what case law or statistics a software program spits out.

So for the time being, I’m not worried about lawyers being completely replaced by robot overlords, but maybe I should be more worried about the rise of Skynet and programmable matter turned into autonomous killing machines?   See,Terminator 2: Genesis of Skynet


Bloggers take aim at Fashion Copycats–alternatives to litigation

In the Wall Street Journal today, an article (click here) about blogs, run by people more fashionable than the attorneys at Melwani & Chan LLP, dedicating a significant amount of time to putting fashion copycats on the spot.  For example, the blog Fashionista has an entire series titled Adventures in Copyright, which takes aim at copying designers and does a side-by-side comparison with the original.  If a small designer legitimately determines a fashion conglomerate such as Chanel, they can resort to remedies other than litigation–which is too expensive for many smaller designers to pursue, by publicly displaying the similarities between the two original design and the copycat.  Other non-litigation alternatives could be seek a licensing deal or contacting the  copycat to see if they are interested in purchasing the design outright.

New York Times-Value of a Trademark in the Internet Age

This article does a pretty nice job of breaking down how important trademarks have become in this day and age.  One thing this article does well is illustrate how a seemingly routine act such as attempting to register your trademark can spiral into a very complex matter.   Plus, it quotes one of our professors from law school — Prof.Barton Beebe.

Please click here for the article: