Can A Robot Lawyer Defend Itself Against Class Action Lawsuit For Unauthorized Practice Of Law
from the questions-questions dept
We were already expecting a lawsuit to be filed against DoNotPay, the massively hyped up company that promises an “AI lawyer” despite all evidence suggesting it’s nothing of the sort. Investigator and paralegal (and Techdirt guest author and podcast guest) Kathryn Tewson had already filed for pre-action discovery in New York, in the expectation of filing a consumer rights case against the company.
However, some others have also jumped in, with a class action complaint being filed in state court in California (first covered by Courthouse News). The full complaint is worth reading.
Defendant DoNotPay claims to be the “world’s first robot lawyer” that can help people with a range of legal issues, from drafting powers of attorney, to creating divorce settlement agreements, or filing suit in small claims court.
Unfortunately for its customers, DoNotPay is not actually a robot, a lawyer, nor a law firm. DoNotPay does not have a law degree, is not barred in any jurisdiction, and is not supervised by any lawyer.
DoNotPay is merely a website with a repository of—unfortunately, substandard— legal documents that at best fills in a legal adlib based on information input by customers.
This is precisely why the practice of law is regulated in every state in the nation. Individuals seeking legal services most often do not fully understand the law or the implications of the legal documents or processes that they are looking to DoNotPay for help with.
The key claim is that DoNotPay is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. And, of course, this is mostly on CEO/founder Joshua Browder and his greatly exaggerated marketing claims. Of course, when Tewson confronted him on this, he told her “the robot lawyer stuff is a controversial marketing term, but I would (sic) get to wound up over it.”
Yeah, but the thing is, people relying on you for legal services might (reasonably?) get “wound up over it” if the legal services they receive make life worse for themselves. The complaint highlights just how hard the company has leaned into these claims about being a “robot lawyer.”
Yeah, I’m going to have to say that this is probably not a good look if you’re then going to claim in court that your “robot lawyer” is not actually doing legal stuff. The complaint also anticipates Browder’s usual response to critics. As we’ve noted, he has a habit of insisting that it’s all nothing important, and it’s just “greedy lawyers” who are scared that he’s disrupting their business.
The complaint pre-buts that argument:
Not surprisingly, DoNotPay has been publicly called out for practicing law without a license—most recently in relation to a stunt in which it sought to actively represent a client in court using AI. In response, DoNotPay’s CEO deflects, blaming “greedy lawyers” for getting in the way….
Sadly, DoNotPay misses the point. Providing legal services to the public, without being a lawyer or even supervised by a lawyer is reckless and dangerous. And it has real world consequences for customers it hurts.
The complaint then highlights some of the problems users of DoNotPay have faced while relying on the service:
One customer, who posted an online review, used DoNotPay’s legal services to dispute two parking tickets. According to his account, his fines actually increased because DoNotPay failed to respond to the ticket summons. The customer then cancelled his account, but DoNotPay continued to charge a subscription fee.
DoNotPay’s service then reversed another customer’s arguments in her parking ticket dispute. Where she had intended to argue she was not at fault, DoNotPay’s services instead admitted fault, and the customer had to pay a resulting $114 fine.
Those are based on online reviews, but the complaint also details the named plaintiff in this case, Jonathan Faridian, and his experience:
Plaintiff Faridian believed he was purchasing legal documents and services that would be fit for use from a lawyer that was competent to provide them. Unfortunately, Faridian did not receive that.
The services DoNotPay provided to Faridian were not provided by a law firm, lawyer, or by a person supervised by a lawyer or firm.
The services DoNotPay provided Faridian were substandard and poorly done.
For example, the demand letters DoNotPay drafted for him, and which were to be delivered to the opposing party, never even made it to his intended recipient. Rather, the letters were ultimately returned undelivered to Faridian’s home. Upon opening one of the letters, Faridian found it to be an otherwise-blank piece of paper with his name printed on it. As a result of this delay, his claims may be time-barred.
Other documents Faridian purchased from DoNotPay were so poorly or inaccurately drafted that he could not even use them. For example, Faridian requested an agency agreement for an online marketing business he wished to start. Upon reviewing the agency agreement drafted by DoNotPay, he noted that the language did not seem to apply to his business. Even the names of relevant parties were printed inaccurately. Faridian was ultimately unable to use this document in his business project. In the end, Faridian would not have paid to use DoNotPay’s services had he known that DoNotPay was not actually a lawyer.
Yikes. Perhaps not a surprise after what Tewson had found, but, still. Sending a blank piece of paper with just his name on it, and not even delivering it properly?
DoNotPay gave Courthouse News a statement that seems typical of its responses to these kinds of allegations… once again attacking the lawyers.
“The named plaintiff has submitted dozens of cases and seen significant success with our products,” the company said. “The case is being filed by a lawyer that has personally made hundreds of millions from class actions, so it’s not surprising that he would accuse an AI of ‘unauthorized practice of law.’ Once we respond in court, this will be cleared up.”
It is true that Jay Edelson is a well known class action lawyer, who has somewhat famously sued a wide variety of Silicon Valley tech companies. I would argue that not all of his lawsuits are necessarily well targeted, but plenty of them are legit, and he’s generally not messing around when he sues. In other words, this may not be the kind of thing that Browder wouldn’t get “wound up over” but… he probably should.
Filed Under: ai lawyer, california, class action, jay edelson, joshua browder, robot lawyer, unauthorized practice of law, upl
Companies: donotpay
Comments on “Can A Robot Lawyer Defend Itself Against Class Action Lawsuit For Unauthorized Practice Of Law”
The lawsuit is likely going absolutely nowhere. One thing people forget about computers is that a human somewhere programmed it. Every single thing a computer tells you to do is actually being relayed to you electronically from a real human, technically speaking.
In the case of the robot lawyer, it was a programmer working at the behest of a legal team, who ARE certified to pass the bar.
You might be able to sue the programmer for doing a poor job, but the robot is an inanimate tool following the instructions of a real lawyer.
Re:
Are you positive that’s the case? Can you provide evidence for your assertion?
But more to the point, how does one become certified to pass the bar (exam)? Mere graduation with a diploma from a law school is not a certification by any means, it is simply a required step on the path to being allowed to take the exam. Passing that exam, and signing the documents and forms thereafter, that’s the certification that declares one to be a lawyer (or attorney, if you prefer).
And guess what? Do you have any idea how many law school graduates don’t pass that exam the first time? Or even multiple times? Now, tell us again about being “certified” to pass the bar (exam)? Inquiring minds wish to know….
Re: Re: It depends
Graduating law school and passing the bar is the big steps. California, the passage rate for the July 2022 bar was 62% for 1st time takers and 17% for repeaters 52.2% total. For the February 2022 exam, it was 55% and 24.8% respectively and 36.7% total.
You are correct, there is more. In California there is a MPRE passage requirement and the passage of the Moral Character Application.
Re:
So uh
I guess you didn’t read the DoNotPay saga then?
Because it’s linked IN the story if you didn’t want to waste time…
And it’s not made at the advice of a bunch of lawyers…
Re:
You’re saying, “you can sue the programmer for shoddy work”. What you’re not saying is “you can sue the lawyer behind the programmer for malpractice”. Unless you can do that, there ain’t no lawyer involved, robot or otherwise. Liability comes with the job description.
Re:
As a programmer myself, I can confirm that this is usually the case, at least to an extent. (There is an exception where you program a computer that then writes another program using an AI, but that’s beyond the scope of this issue.)
Also as a programmer, I can say, “What are you smoking?” No, no it is not. Maybe you can say that about a lot of things a computer tells you to do, but it isn’t even close to every single thing a computer tells you to do.
Really? Do you have evidence that this is the case? Nothing like that is stated on the website, as far as I can tell.
But even if that’s true, this is irrelevant to the claims at issue. Unless the lawyers are personally involved in writing the code themselves, they aren’t the ones involved in the program’s output by any stretch.
Also, what in the world do you mean by “certified to pass the bar”? That isn’t actually a thing, as far as I can tell. You can be certified to have passed the bar exam, I guess, but not “to pass” the bar exam.
First off, by suing the corporation, they are suing the programmers.
Second, even if the robot was programmed by someone working at the behest of a legal team like you claim, that robot would not be following the instructions of that legal team. It would be following the instructions of the programmer and the user (who is not a lawyer). These two things are not the same thing.
Third, unless those lawyers are surveying the output from the robot, it’s irrelevant to the underlying claim.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
[Citation needed]
You are clearly not smart enough to code.
Re: Re: Re:
I literally write code for a living. It’s my job. I don’t know what else to tell you.
If you don’t believe me, fine, but then you really aren’t in any position to criticize anyone else for not believing your claims of expertise in whatever STEM field it was you claim to have worked in.
Not A Lawyer.
No. It has not passed THE BAR. That thing lawyers use to keep out the riffraff.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Realistically just the oldest example of a “licensing board” a classic form of regulatory capture. “Riffraff” just means “competition”.
“Plaintiff Faridian believed he was purchasing legal documents and services that would be fit for use from a lawyer that was competent to provide them.” But would a reasonable person believe that a robot can be a lawyer? He was shocked to find out the robot was not a lawyer?
Re:
Define “reasonable”. The current crop of Republicans might disagree with your definition. Just sayin’…..
Re:
Hey, Bender was a lawyer…
A terrible one, but still.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Cover "The Censorship-Industrial Complex", you coward
Taibbi and Shellenberger brought receipts. (you can tell, cuz liberals are big mad about it, ad hominem flying like crazy)
Also, Bar Associations are arguably one of the oldest examples of regulatory capture ever. (That has nothing to do with whether “DoNotPay” is junk)
Re:
Jesus, you don’t even know what regulatory capture is, do you?
Hint: what you’re describing, the Bar Association (in each state) is a self-regulated industry, it is not subject to any oversight from any kind of non-lawyer group (office, commission, department, etc.), one that might actually have the public interest at heart by virtue of election by the populace. Thus there can be no ‘rotation’ between the Bar and an oversight group…. the very definition of ‘regulatory capture’.
One does have to wonder, how many psychiatrists visit TD to see just how often you self-flagellate by shit-posting in order to get flagged.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Do you?
Again, do you?
The lawyers in each state get to decide who gets to practice law….by law. If you practice law without a single, particular trade group’s approval it is illegal.
How fucking dumb are you? It’s like you’re arguing because the regulatory capture is complete and total it isn’t regulatory capture anymore.
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, is that always your go-to response when you get your shit handed to you?
You just got owned in the comments section here and you resort to grade school level arguments.
Again… all bluster and zero bite.
You must live a sad and pathetic life…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I said a great deal more than that, but your comment was nonsensical and dumb. You have a collection of lawyers acting as regulatory board of lawyers (with authority to keep out competition) supported by law. It’s classic regulatory capture (but an extreme form).
How? Here’s the def, for your edification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Here’s an example of a similar situation occuring with cosmetology as licensing board. Again, the only difference is that the bar association has been around since the middle ages (y’know, when there were guilds) so we think that makes it OK somehow.
https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/regulation/regulatory-capture-in-cosmetology-licensing-boards/
Yeah, I don’t feel very “owned”.
Re: Re: Re:3
So, which corps have captured lawyering again?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
So you just don’t or are refusing to grasp what regulatory capture is?
The lawyers, the lawyers have “captured lawyering”. It doesn’t have to be a corp. The lawyers get to decide who their competitors are.
Re: Re: Re:5
Do you also think that Doctors have regulatory capture over the practice of medicine?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Obviously. How is that a question?
Re: Re: Re:7
I want my doctors, and lawyers and engineers for that matter, to be people who have been approved by their peers as having the ability to do their job, and not just be somebody who has maybe read a book and watched a few videos and claims a skill they do not have.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Cool that’s the same argument cosmetologists make arguing that you need X hours schooling to cut hair. Interior designers too, actually. Florists, for chrissakes, in some states. All you’re arguing is that the regulatory capture is good, in this case?
Civil engineering tests, at least, are almost always issued by the state.
Re: Re: Re:9
Gee it’s almost like different skilled trades need different balances of competition and ability to do the job right. Florist and interior designer? Probably not necessary. Hairdresser? Probably not for the cosmetics but maybe for achieving a particular style?
Doctors and lawyers, where a fuckup can kill or ruin a person? Absolutely. Engineers, where a fuckup can be catastrophic at scale? Probably warrants state supervision and responsibility.
Re: Re: Re:9
Let me know when incompetence by a cosmetologist or a florist is likely to result in people being seriously harmed or wrongfully convicted, and then we can talk. Oh, and when what is considered “good” cosmetology or “good” flower-providing is not almost entirely subjective.
Otherwise, this is a false equivalence.
I’m pretty sure that the same goes for the bar exam and most (if not all) medical exams. I could be wrong, though. However, if I am right, that would kinda ruin this point.
Re: Re: Re:9
Yes, people who use sharp scissors on my scalp should be trained.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes, I do fucking know what regulatory capture is and how it’s done.
So, which corps are doing the capture? There’s plenty of examples of regulatory capture, so unless a few LAW FIRMS are doing it…
Do cite your examples, because a single article from a libertarian source isn’t all tjat convincing, coming from you.
Re: Re: Re:6
I think it’s more credentialism than regulatory capture.
In many types of cases nonlawyers can already practice (usually where it’s not worth it to hire an attorney).
Re: Re: Re:3
Note: this is one of Matthew’s “tells” he uses exclusively when he lacks thhe cognitive capacity to graap the meaning of what he’s replying to. You never see it in any other situations.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I actually pointed out exactly how and why it was nonsensical and dumb.
….do you “graap” anything, really?
Re: Re: Re:5
He graaps better than you grok things
Re: Re: Re:5
No, you did not. You made an assertion it was “nonsensical and dumb,” but provided no actual evidence that it was.
You seem to be of the impression that any organizational body determining who can practice a profession is “regulatory capture.” This is flatly incorrect.
Re: Re: Re:5
You, of all people, are in no position to criticize other people’s typos, Mr. Bar Weiss.
Re: Re: Re:5
Hey boyo, your pimp daddy Chozen believes typos are a sign of intelligence. Get with the program or you’re going to be the little spoon again!
Re: Re: Re:6
I’m going to be whatever spoon I fucking like, you goddamn leftist.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re the worst AI lawyer, goodbye
Re:
What a stupid fucking term.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It’s a little hyperbolic, but unfortunately, very accurate.
But you didn’t even know those hearings happened or what they exposed until an hour ago.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s extremely hyperbolic and inaccurate for multiple reasons:
Please think about these things for more than 5 seconds before you endorse them.
Now, let me hear the usual lies and delusions you have on this subject.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Literally you just mean you don’t like it.
It was government censorship by proxy, nothing less.
When a cop shoots you using a Glock, the cop shot you, not the Glock company. Even when they miss sometimes.
Re: Re: Re:3
What a childish argument.
Except for the fact that it wasn’t.
That’s one of the dumbest analogies you’ve ever made, and that’s saying something!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
I just responded at your level.
I love the idea the gov spent hundreds of millions of dollars to NOT censor anyone.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes or no: Did the federal government directly and explicitly order Twitter to ban certain kinds of speech or certain users/accounts by threatening Twitter with fines or other forms of punishment for any refusal to follow those orders?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Error: Strawman detected.
C’mon, you’re smarter than that.
Re: Re: Re:7
Is it? It hits the point square on the jaw.
Let’s put it this way, since it’s tax season and all. I recall you said it’s censorship if I invite someone to my house, they poop on my floor as an insult, and I kick them out. So. I’m getting a deduction for my mortgage interest, i.e. taking payment from the government for my homeownership. Does that fact alone make me kicking the pooper out government censorship? Or does the government have to suggest I kick poopers out of my house if I want that deduction in order to rise to the level of censorship?
Re: Re: Re:8
Not entirely. Matthew is alleging government censorship by proxy, not direct government censorship. Stephen asked if the facts he was alleging or that was in evidence would fit the criteria for direct government censorship, not government censorship by proxy.
Re: Re: Re:7
I don’t see how that’s a strawman. You’re the one who keeps claiming that the government specifically and explicitly ordered Twitter to censor certain users and/or certain kinds of speech. Alls I’m asking you to do is offer the proof behind that claim by showing me where the government threatened Twitter with consequences for any refusal to follow those orders. Whether you can or you can’t offer that proof, say so—and if you can, actually offer the proof instead of insulting everyone’s intelligence (including your own).
Re: Re: Re:8
No, there is one part that is a strawman:
(Emphasis added.) Matthew has been consistent that this was a(n alleged) case of censorship by proxy, not direct censorship. As such, asking for evidence of the federal government directly ordering Twitter to ban users, accounts, or speech doesn’t really make sense.
The rest is close enough by my reckoning as anything less would mean it wouldn’t be illegal (which he alleged), but that particular requirement is definitely a strawman. I believe there is some precedent for censorship by proxy being prohibited, notwithstanding whether or not the instant case would fit those circumstances.
Here’s what I would ask instead:
Under this scheme, it is plausible that those NGOs would be considered state actors under the 1A, so they would be restricted by that amendment and thus would have heavy limitations on what could be done to censor speech.
I would also add that, if actual punishment of Twitter was imposed by the government for failure to comply, that would be a fair alternative to threatening future punishment. In either case, we would have strong evidence of coercion by the government being involved, which is necessary to demonstrate government censorship.
Re: Re: Re:9
Fair points. 👍
Re: Re: Re:7
That is not a strawman, that’s a valid rebuttal to your claim.
Re: Re: Re:7
While I agree there is a strawman (specifically, the use of the word “directly” renders it not relevant to your claims, as you have been consistent that you are alleging government censorship by proxy, not direct government censorship), I think you may have misunderstood what Stephen is getting at.
See, Stephen is saying that something that doesn’t lead to the answer to his question being “Yes” would not be a case of unconstitutional government censorship under current 1A case law.
I still think you’re more right than he is on whether he’s strawmanning you in this case, but the question isn’t meant as a summary of all your claims and evidence but rather the necessary conditions for the evidence you provided to be definitive evidence of unlawful censorship by the government under the law.
Re: Re: Re:3
Wait guns kill people? Fuck…
Re:
Where? The thread you pointed to last week had no receipts. It showed that a group at Stanford (not government) made recommendations to Twitter (not government) and that Twitter regularly disagreed with those assessments and did not act on them (not censorship).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Every step of what you just said was a lie. The group in question was government funded. Also, it was one of a dozen such orgs. And it was very definitely censorship.
You have the US gov spending hundreds of millions in total to get users banned. Very often US users, based upon the content of the speech. How often they were successful is completely unrelated to that. It would be illegal if they were never successful, but of course then they wouldn’t have spent the money to do so.
Re: Re: Re:
How so?
Irrelevant. “Government-funded” does not mean “government” or “government-directed”.
Not acting on a recommendation or order to remove an account or post (which is what the other person was referring to) is in no way censorship, and a recommendation without any consequence or other imposed incentive (actual or threatened, explicit or implicit) for action or inaction is not censorship, either.
That is not in evidence. That is the claim you are making, but the evidence doesn’t support it.
It is absolutely relevant if there is no evidence that Twitter received (or was threatened with) any consequences imposed by the government or the sender for not complying with the recommendations or orders, and if there is no evidence that Twitter was promised any benefits for compliance.
Not if no punishment was imposed or threatened, and not if no reward was promised. And certainly not if there is no evidence that the government directed these efforts (funding does not prove direction for a specific act).
Uh, even taking everything else as true, that doesn’t actually follow. The funding was received before the alleged attempts at censorship, so if the government thought it would be successful, that would be sufficient to explain why they would spend the money to do so. There is no reason to believe that they had to have been correct.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Bari Weiss, STFU and go away. Never responding to anything you write seriously ever again.
Incorrect
Incorrect
Incorrect
Get the fuck out of my face you verbose dumbshit
Re: Re: Re:3
I’ll let them know if I ever meet them.
Like, you don’t need to be as verbose as me, but you’re literally just saying, “Nuh-uh” without offering any arguments whatsoever. And you expect Mike to take you seriously?
You first. Seriously, if it didn’t work on you, why the hell would you think it would work on me?
Re:
What regulatory agency has captured it?
It’s not the FDA, FCC, FAA, USDA, etc…
So what is the actual agency that has captured the legal profession such that there is a constant revolving door between the government and private business?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
….that’s by far not the only way Regulatory Capture occurs.
Those are all federal, this is the state level.
I think you mean “what regulatory agency have they captured” but that’s the thing — they ARE the regulatory agency. You have a private org in each state, owned and operated by lawyers, who is solely the regulatory body for lawyers in that state.
It’s the very definition of regulatory capture, in this case via licensing board.
https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/regulation/regulatory-capture-in-cosmetology-licensing-boards/
The general definition, if you’re interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
Dude, stop going off-topic. This article has nothing at all to do with Twitter, Elon Musk, or free speech. This is not the place to whine that Mike isn’t covering whatever is being said about the latest Twitter Files.
“the practice of law is regulated in every state in the nation”
Apparently not very well, based upon the plethora of bad lawyers turned politicians. A few have been censured, as if that will stop their idiocy. A few have received threats of disbarment, but as we all know that never happens to the political puppet lawyers.
So have the bot draft the pleadings and hire a lawyer to do a quick review and be there if needed and 80 percent of the profession can learn to code.
Courts could go one better and have a pro se input the facts of the case and a clerk touches it up. This is a total disruptor.
Re:
That would be a simplistic view of a lawsuit. And who knows, it might actually be all that’s needed in small claims court.
But most court cases turn on facts, and on the law. The lawyer is the one who helps you organize – and discover – the facts, and presents them in terms of how the law and precedents apply.
Pay for nothing, get nothing.
Re:
“So have the bot draft the pleadings and hire a lawyer to do a quick review and be there if needed and 80 percent of the profession can learn to code.”
Brilliant, then when the pleadings are literally worse than nothing, the lawyer gets paid more to fix them.
“Courts could go one better and have a pro se input the facts of the case and a clerk touches it up. This is a total disruptor.”
Brilliant, then when the clerk decides he hates you, he can fix it so you lose with no chance to recover.
Re: Re:
Because all civil servants don’t like people who argue with you on the internet to the point of abusing power and risking their jobs?
Re: Re:
ChatGPT (actually GPT-4) can do a lot of the repetitive work in drafting pleadings and correspondence, even legal research.
Maybe that struck a nerve with you, given the immature tone of your response, but it’s obvious that GPT will change law and eliminate many jobs in the profession while greatly reducing the need for and cost of attorneys.
Same is true for accountants, doctors, or any white-collar professional whose income is fueled by public ignorance and proefssional condescension sourced in the ability to do research that literally anyone can now perform with GPT.
What might happen to an AI robot lawyer who does not make it rain? Might that bot then become a politician?
How many of our present day political characters are actually robots?
Bring back Max Headroom
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
A chatbot is not a person, and therefore cannot be practicing law without a license. Anyone may go into court pro se (i.e., representing themselves) without needing a law license. Anyone may sell law text books. Anyone may sell legal research services, as PACER and Westlaw do. Anyone may sell boilerplate legal forms. Regardless of the merit of DoNotPay itself, it should be possible to put together such a service that will skirt the efforts of the entrenched gatekeepers to stifle competition.
Re:
The chatbot isn’t the one being sued; it’s the corporation that programs and offers it, and—legally speaking—corporations are people.
I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact that DoNotPay, as advertised, was not how to do it.
Re: Re:
You can have law firms that are corporations: https://www.upcounsel.com/can-law-firms-incorporate
The only 'threat' that poses is dying from laughter
It’s telling that the only defense the owner seems to be able to bring to the table is the same excuse repeated over and over: ‘the only reason they object to the awesome service I’m offering isn’t because it’s absolutely terrible but because lawyers might be out of a job!’
Yeah man, I’m sure lawyers are going to be dropping like flies thanks to being replaced by a service that- checks notes sends a single almost blank piece of paper with the client’s name and nothing else on it.
Re:
If anything, all donotpay has so far accomplished is providing MORE work for lawyers, in both suing and defending them.
Ah finally - a new variant of Prenda and Salt Marsh
I miss the old days. Story after story about Prenda Law, and the infamous “Salt Marsh”, among other shady characters.
Seeing the steady flow of stories about DoNotPay, has begun easing my sadness that the Prenda days are over.
And while they are entirely different cases, the hilarity of them is equal. The pathetic con artistry, the grifter mentality, are up to the task.
So I need to thank Joshua Browder for being so bad at his own game. Truly. I appreciate it.
And I look forward to many more lawsuits, and eventually, Browder getting shredded by the courts.
So someone trained a LLM on Preda’s cases and called it a lawyer?
Only if the plaintiffs are all robots too.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
ChatGPT can pass the Bar Exam and draft all kinds of pleadings plus do research and suggest arguments. It’s a very powerful legal assistant tht will at the very least cut most billable hours. Maybe that’ll lead to people behaving better if anyone has access to a lawbot. Courts are gonna rely on them as well.
Re:
One day perhaps. Today they are not able to keep the law straight though, and that’s more trouble than not knowing the law at all.
Re:
Hi, Joshua Browder!
Re:
No, I still would not trust Bender even if the court was fake and he was acting.
I asked ChatGPT to draft a defamation demand letter “in the voice of a lawyer.” This is what I got:
Certainly. Here’s a draft defamation demand letter in the voice of a lawyer:
[Law Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP Code]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]
[Today’s Date]
Mike Stone
[Website Owner’s Address]
[City, State ZIP Code]
Dear Mr. Stone,
We are writing on behalf of our client [Your Name], who has brought to our attention that you have published defamatory statements about our client on your website [Website Name]. As a lawyer representing our client, we demand that you immediately remove the offending content from your website and issue a retraction and apology.
Your false and damaging statements [describe the statements made about your client] have caused our client significant harm to their reputation, and have resulted in [describe the harm caused to your client, such as loss of income, emotional distress, etc.]. This harm has been compounded by the fact that your statements have been made public on your website, and have been viewed by a large number of people.
As you may be aware, the law provides remedies for individuals who have been defamed. In order to avoid legal action, we demand that you take the following actions within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter:
Remove the defamatory content from your website.
Publish a retraction and apology on your website, acknowledging that the statements made about our client were false and that you regret publishing them.
If you fail to comply with these demands, we will have no choice but to pursue legal action against you to protect our client’s reputation and recover damages for the harm that your actions have caused. Please be advised that our client is entitled to seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal fees, as a result of your actions.
We strongly urge you to comply with our demands within the stated time frame to avoid the consequences of legal action. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Lawyer’s Name]
[Law Firm Name]
Re:
No welcome to the big leagues, no govern yourself accordingly… pfft.
Re: Re:
I won’t spoil the outcome, but you can ask ChatGPT to add “snark” to the letter.
Re: Re:
IANAL, but the statute of limitations for defamation can vary wildly from state to state, so a prompt to do research on the date of publication, where it was published, and the relevant SOL might be of merit.
Also, the letter is addressed to only the website owner and not the author. Not only is this unfair, but if they are different people, unrelated by employment, 47 U.S.C. § 230 could make this letter’s legal threats entirely meritless.
Also, your actual lawyer might be a bit peeved when you draft a letter and sign their name to it.
Re: Re: Re:
This was just a basic example. ChatGPT can draft entire complaints and take into account the laws (especially if it’s tailored for lawyers they probably already have something like this).
One lawyer could supervise dozens of these bots and reduce the cost of representation to next to nothing. Courts could use it to equalize the playing field and shift the focus from who has money to who has the best case. It could even input the fact and spit out recommendations similar to the system Germany (or is it France) uses, where you plead the facts and they construct the complaint.
I don’t see ChatGPT replacing lawyers, though it should reduce their numbers, the cost, and the need for litigation support.
Re: Re: Re:
Then there was this request:
“ChatGPT, please draft, in the voice of an attorney or what you think one would sound like, a cease-and-desist letter to an organzation whose members disrupt businesses by yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Advise them that they could face civil action under RICO, and make clear that “Yes, this is RICO.””
Dear Sir/Madam,
We represent the interests of our client, [Client Name], who has brought to our attention the disruptive activities carried out by your organization’s members. We have been informed that your members have been yelling “fire” in crowded theaters, causing chaos, endangering the safety of innocent individuals, and disrupting the business operations of our client and others.
Please be advised that your organization’s actions violate several laws, including the laws governing public safety and order, and may result in criminal and civil liability. We would like to remind you that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a serious offense that can result in harm to individuals and property, and may also be considered a form of incitement.
Furthermore, we would like to bring to your attention the fact that your organization’s actions may also be subject to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). As you may be aware, RICO is a federal law that provides for both criminal and civil penalties for organizations and individuals engaged in illegal activities.
Your organization’s activities may constitute a pattern of criminal behavior that violates the RICO Act. If we determine that your organization is engaging in such behavior, we will not hesitate to take civil action under RICO. Let there be no doubt, “Yes, this is RICO.”
Therefore, we demand that you immediately cease and desist from engaging in any activities that disrupt the peace and safety of the community, including yelling “fire” in crowded theaters. Failure to comply with this demand may result in legal action against your organization.
We trust that you will take this matter seriously and act accordingly.
Sincerely,
[Attorney Name]
[Law Firm Name]
Re: Re: Re:2
Are you trying to get Ken White’s head to pull a Scanners with that?
Re: Re: Re:3
Who?
Re: Re: Re:4
Also known as Popehat, a lawyer who’s shown up a number of times in TD articles for his lack of patience for fools and willingness to really rake them over the coals when the opportunity presents itself, and wrote both a ‘It’s not RICO’ article on his own site talking about how it’s basically never RICO despite the claim popping up so often and an article talking about misconceptions regarding the first amendment that among other things shot down the ‘you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater’ argument.
Re: Re: Re:5
wut
Re: Re:
You forgot to add:
“Snort my taint”
Re: Re: Re:
Wouldn’t that be in response to the C&D letter?
Re:
Oh god, it’s Techdirt’s worst nightmare: Me and Mike Masnick doing the Fusion Dance.
Re:
No good. It didn’t sign off with “govern yourself accordingly.” Fail.
The comparatively greater degree of stress for Faridian aside, this reminds me how ICE rejected Mike’s FOIA fee waiver request without giving any reason:
First they came for copyright...
Lawyers are going the way of medallion taxis, another useless credential. What’s that about not adapting to the new reality like in copyright?
Just like copyright is obsolete, so is that $250,000 law license:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/14/openai-announces-gpt-4-says-beats-90percent-of-humans-on-sat.html
“GPT-4 performed at the 90th percentile on a simulated bar exam, the 93rd percentile on an SAT reading exam, and the 89th percentile on the SAT Math exam, OpenAI claimed.”