upvote

points

by lenerdenator7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tyromaniac7 hours ago|
next
[-]
I think they should be somehow restricted to using non-generative models (or at least for the user facing output). Something that would only identify potentially relevant case law from an existing set, to accelerate the search process.

Common law in general seems essentially impossible to formalize in such a way to use purely deterministic reasoning models of yesteryear, but I'm sure many specific laws could be converted, especially in fields like tax law (I'm sure they already are by many big players)

reply
upvoteby elohimus7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
A lot of law is combing through large bodies of rule sets and reference cases to find inputs or parallels relevant for a case. Are you sure you'd rather have Lionel Hutz, Esq. with his limited comprehension do that at half a page per minute?
reply
upvoteby otterley6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This capability has already existed for decades thanks to Westlaw and LexisNexis. These are indispensable tools in the lawyer’s kit.
reply
upvoteby alansaber5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You're kidding, right? Using Astra to comb through cases is far faster than doing it manually in Westlaw. Models for research are pretty good now.
reply
upvoteby otterley5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There’s no question that the technology has improved. It’s just that the way GP described the situation made it sound like there weren’t legal indices before.
reply
upvoteby lenerdenator7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yes, actually, because Lionel can suffer a consequence. He can be sanctioned. He can be disbarred. He can be sued. He can be thrown in jail.

AI can not meaningfully suffer consequences for what it does, and the trend is to remove the human from the loop more and more.

Furthermore, it's entirely conceivable that you have a law firm staffed by lawyers who more-or-less just say "yeah sure whatever" to what this thing does and, when asked about what can be done to appeal something, or how a document didn't make it into evidence, or how a subpoena wasn't filed, just shrug their shoulders and go "iunno". Vibe-practicing law, basically. You need to have an idea of how they're using AI and in what parts of the case.

reply
upvoteby orangedog7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That same stuff can all still happen tot he lawyer who uses these tools. If he makes an egregious enough mistake, he's liable.
reply
upvoteby lenerdenator6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And that's why you want him to have to disclose that he used those tools.
reply
upvoteby vidarh6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Why do the tools matters? He is equally liable if he makes the mistakes without them.
reply
upvoteby bigstrat20033 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
So that you know he is more likely to make a mistake. Just like why many people avoid software written by LLMs, because it is much more likely to have bugs.
reply
upvoteby vidarh6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If Lionel submits junk from an AI, he can still be sanctioned, disbarred, sued, and thrown in jail, just as he could if he let some incompetent paralegal screw up and he submits the resulting documents without checking them.

It's ultimately his name on the documents submitted to the court.

reply
upvoteby onlyrealcuzzo7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> but spending years or decades in prison because Lionel Hutz, Esq. did something stupid at a prompt sounds unappealing to me.

In which case would this be the primary blame, and not the legal system itself, or you for actually doing the crime?

I fail to see how its your lawyers fault that you went to jail for a crime you didn't commit over the system as a whole. And I really fail to see how it's the lawyer's sole fault that you went to jail for a crime that you should - in fact - have went to jail for...

There are a lot of problems with the legal system (including with lawyers). This just doesn't seem like the hill to die on.

reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There are a lot of situations where my lawyer's mistake might cause me to go to jail for a crime I didn't commit. There could be some prejudicial evidence that he failed to get excluded, or exculpatory evidence that he failed to get included, or an incorrect ruling in the trial that wasn't properly preserved for appeal.
reply
upvoteby lenerdenator7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> In which case would this be the primary blame, and not the legal system itself, or you for actually doing the crime?

There are plenty of ways a lawyer can screw up procedurally that can drastically impact your case.

reply
upvoteby ReptileMan7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
One of the nice quirks of USA justice system is that you don't have to be guilty of a crime to go to prison, just that the prosecution has to convince 12 people beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

The sixth is taken seriously to the point that incompetent lawyer could be a valid reason for granting a retrial.

reply
upvoteby suburban_strike6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
An attorney I have retained from a large firm bills me $500 to send me one email update a month (minimum billable).

They are obviously AI-generated (but does not disclose such) and frequently misses or conflates key details the same way Gemma in particular does. They're also bizarrely positive when I correct them instead of pissy and arrogant like I'm used to.

Nobody should be paying these rates for legal "work" performed by a machine that poorly acts the part.

reply