Lawyers

Paul Allen (likely) says

Probably should be 20% as of now. There is definitely pushback, but after collecting every bit of data (legally), anything could be extrapolated. From quantizing logic, morals, discrepancies, to the most minuscule details that could never be obtained by a legal team. This could be accomplished by feeding the A.I. previous cases and analyzing every bit of it to understand the outcome of each of those cases. Lawyers will need to be present as an advocate for the A.I.'s work. This will potentially lead to lower costs as well as more fair and robust trials. Though people's ego tends to interfere with progression, so who knows. Carry on.

Obviously, the heart rate thing was a joke... kinda lol.

Noice (Could go either way) says

I mean, Lawyers are creative, original, and not really something that can be copied by a machine, but with the technology we have, it could happen.

A Robot (Small chance) says

Robots would have to have a very sophisticated AI to be able to defend someone in court. Even if they did, they would be super expensive. So, nobody in their right mind would actually buy one.

Jimmy Allen Davis (Highly likely) says

I am an engineer, physicist, and lawyer.

I am coding an expert system to act as my legal assistant and paralegal. I plan on expanding it into the AI field and having it, and many iterations of it handling my cases.

I am also working on using the same code to perform mediation as well.

Khan Sab (Likely) says

Most of the well-paying firms tend to serve big corporations, and as technology progresses, I am sure there will be some sort of technology that will ease the tediousness of the law.

This won't mean attorneys are out of a job, but it does mean that most of the complexities in the job will ease down.

Eric Martinez (Small chance) says

It is challenging to completely replace this occupation with robots, but it can be partially replaced. A.I. lawyers could complement the work of a real lawyer, and maybe the very junior level could be replaced in some areas of the law.

Mr. Pessimist-Realist (Could go either way) says

NLP developments mean a lot of the textual/case analysis work can be readily automated, while most commercial legal functions could be automated in-house save for the highest-level litigation work available. Paralegals will be extinct. Criminal lawyers should do just fine. The only thing saving the majority of the field for the future would be cultural/institutional lag, as execs and clients remain reluctant to entrust all their legal rights and remedies to disembodied data models. Most would prefer a real neck to hang if things went wrong, after all. I'd like to see a neural network come up with the Double Irish, though.

Xenu B (No chance) says

Lawyers control laws passed by their profession and they will simply outlaw AI to replace them. We will see some streamlining.

Armando Rodríguez Cervantes (Small chance) says

The practice of law requires many skills that are not easily substitutable by robots and algorithms, such as empathy, social intelligence and understanding of socio-cultural contexts, to propose solutions or to manage conflicts between individuals or groups.

Patrick (Could go either way) says

There are many layers to this activity and it can't be generalized. Some specializations (like Mass Lawsuits) are in danger, while others are less likely to be quickly automatized.

Jon Kent (Small chance) says

Certain aspects of legal work are more prone to disruption by AI, from the generation and review of wills and other typical legal documents to more advanced research capacities, though in-person litigation would seem to be an unlikely skill to be overtaken in the near term.

anonymous (Highly likely) says

lawyer work is mostly tedious and works by a set of rigid rules that AI can easily be trained on once it has decent language recognition, which will happen in less than a decade

Death Angel says

I hate Lawyers just like Politicians. Both "professions" need AI who don't like corruption...

YJ (Small chance) says

The reason why I have thoughts of this occupation will only have a small chance of being replaced is because this occupation requires logic, creative thinking skills, and good communication skills to persuade others, which the AI could not do because all of the cases that the lawyer will meet is diverse and different.

Alessandro Liberato (Likely) says

In routine tasks such as protocol, communication of the progress of the process and sending reports and simple petitions, tools can be developed that will help the Personal Lawyer to better serve clients, valuing the service provided with the ability of a robot to work like a slave 24 hours a day 365 days of the year with simple tasks enabling professionals to sell their time with customer service.

N (Could Go Either Way) says

There is already a robot out there that is a Lawyer: donotpay

Gaga (Likely) says

Majority of the work can be automated, but a human factor will always be needed.

Myuu (Small chance) says

Chatbots are already quite advanced, combined with neural network for searching through laws and previous cases it won't replace lawyer exactly but will allow anyone to build pretty solid case for themselves without actually knowing much of law

Daniel Osborne (Highly likely) says

There are functions of the legal profession that are harder to replicate (client interface, for example), but in tasks like document review, contract drafting, and even brief writing, a huge database of sample data will provide a strong base for machine learning.

Michał (No chance) says

Lawyers have to remain human, since it is vital for justice to function properly

Willis (Highly likely) says

Law is very defined. Program AI to follow law and they will be lawyer and judge to resolve legal disputes

HZ (Small chance) says

I think on corporate deals it will be easier to write up the contracts but many big corporations would not want a robot to do the legal work for them.

Andy says

Certain sectors will be automated which will lead to more people being actually able to make use of their rights (flightright in Germany). There are certain things that will however never be automated. With court proceedings, one might argue. But if there´s a dispute between companies that are seeking for arbitration, they normally want highly individualised and discreet proceedings that AI will not be able to offer.

The Thing (Small chance) says

It's not that robots/AI will not be able to carry out a lawyer's job. To me, it seems that courts and the legal system may not consider and accept such technology as an alternative to humans

BRUNO TONET GOBBI (Highly likely) says

I believe it will be replaced, as long as the rules are clear.

Lawyer (No chance) says

Notarial work will be automated, but litigation, law interpretation and judging, is completely safe; after all lawyers make all the rules, and we always make the system need us

Alexandra (Small chance) says

There is small chance because the lawyers must analyze every case with detail. even the smallest detail can change the focus of the case. Also, it is very important to really understand the needs of the client. I really don't think a robot can perform that task, because it involves social abilities.

Dathbag (Could go either way) says

Some aspects of lawyer's work, like collecting evidences or browsing documents in search might be automatized by searching and using queries.

But understanding the connections between words and associated ideas is a uniquely human ability.

Sandor (Small chance) says

Even if it would be technically possible, it would be a really bad idea to found complete branches of powers on robots. Imagine a robot judge sentence you to life imprisonment (or to death, in some jurisdictions). Why would you execute its decision? How would checks and balances would work in this situation?

As a client, how would you build your confidence to ask the advice of a lawyer robot? How do you know it handles your data properly and who guarantees it? The government, or big tech companies? The very idea beats GDPR and the most up-to-the-minute legislations even.

Though I think in administration exists a few jobs which could be made completely useless by just automatizing. This would already be possible at this moment, but I guess governments just don't intend to have thousands of unemployed ex-administrators just for the reason of being 'more efficient'.

E (No chance) says

It is a legal requirement for lawyers to be humans, and nobody will ever accept putting the fate of human beings into the hands of an AI

Daniel (No chance) says

I would never go to a robot lawyer, they won't display the same confidence. Also you go to lawyer for how they treat you and how professional they look. Also law requires many logic and abstract aspects of knowledge a robot couldn't posses.

Edy (Could go either way) says

Don’t we already search for laws and applications of it online before going to a lawyer?

Dhruv agrawal (No chance) says

Law is a profession which requires critical thinking, reasoning and analysing. Robots have less chance to do this efficiency as it is one of the basic difference between robots and humans

hypocrite says

If law could be perfected, why don't the most intelligent people come together and form it? It's because it's unethical and sometimes disgusting. If law is 'perfected' then we will be living in a dystopia. Everyone will have to follow the rules, without being able to think for themselves. Unlike robots, human feel and empathize with each other; so if law could be truly perfected and automated, that will essentially strip away our human rights and make us no better than cold unfeeling robots.

MooshroomsRCool (Small chance) says

There is little chance of courtroom lawyers being replaced by robots. For this profession you need the ability to read people, to be able to sense emotion and build on that. Robots thus far are not capable of doing this.

Ryder (No chance) says

Because you know how many years of programming it would take probably 5 YEARS they would have to code every law of the united states of America in it so not a chance

- (Could go either way) says

Basically, robots could be made to FIND arguments in a court. But I have a hard time thinking they can defend you in a court.

Murdadog (No chance) says

No A.I. has been invented yet than can scam as well as a human. Except Brad Parscales "Death Star" did to Trump

Simon (Likely) says

Most tasks will be replaced be educated people using an AI interface like watson, to solve their problems by themselves.

jiyun (Small chance) says

A lawyer should communicate, and empathize with their clients. These are exactly what human have to do. If robots do that, many clients won't think that they are empath and protected. A lawyer is the job that FEELs the client's emotion.

Roland (No chance) says

Lawyer is too broad of a term- basic discovery, looking over contracts etc. can be easily automated, but the interpretation of law as well as arguments for the interpretation are out of reach of computers.

Audrey Liew (Highly likely) says

My tasks can be highly automated

thomas (No chance) says

Firstly, Robots don't have the ability to respond to a question, not only that but they cant express their feelings to make an argument.

Aryaa Dubey (Could go either way) says

There are definitely some aspects of being in the legal field that just require a simple application of rules and procedures, and transforming the entire judicial system as one that is automated could happen, but lawyers and the judiciary would go kicking and screaming mostly because it would be of great interest to them to maintain a 'human touch' in the field, regardless of how good at critical thinking the AI becomes. It is possible, though.

Rodd College (Highly likely) says

The world’s first AI lawyer called ROSS by IBM has already replaced lawyers, next one in line please.

Jaida P (Small chance) says

The paperwork and communication may become more automated but I don’t see how a robot could represent in court.

Sebastian Cojocaru says

Robots don't receive bribes.

Cristian (Could go either way) says

It could go in any direction, that is, there are already machines in the US that try to impersonate the judge or lawyer but this will always be part of the human. I believe that there will be a help towards the lawyer, as an assistant that can improve the function of the lawyer in their cases.
I do not see a replacement very feasible but rather a help towards the lawyer or towards the judiciary.

nmk (Highly likely) says

The imperfection of the law preserves lawyers

David Ančić (No chance) says

I think that lawyers will not be replaced by machines because in that work you need to be open minded and think about other things not just about law

Man says

It won't happen because lawyers will make it illegal for them to be replaced.

Ramon (Highly likely) says

if they see all the data from the "person in question", with a little bit of AI it could figure out something

Renan (Highly likely) says

In reality, what lawyers do is learn rules and how to apply them in specific cases, that is a task that can certainly be automated with machine learning

Val (No chance) says

For engineers, IT people and the common person in the street, there persist the idea that law and the judicial function is merely applying X rule to Y case, prevented by that specific rule. This is a very old idea, one born from 17th and 18th century philosophers such as Montesquieu (the judge acting only as the "mouth" of the law.) This idea also leads to something called "formalism" in legal theory, which leads to injustice and cases where the law could be applied in an unfair way.

Other than that, there are other factors to consider when we ask ourselves if law will be automated:

The actual jobs - I think "menial" tasks such as contract revision on the states can (an already can be done) by an AI.

However, other functions such as advocacy and the judging function performed either by a judge or a jury, cannot be replaced by robots. This in part because, as Hart puts it, law is an institution.

If we put this perspective in the light of automation, we must turn into the rules and principles that govern the institution which we know as law. This becomes much more clear when we are talking about criminal law and the principles that govern it, and when we contrast it to algorithms which, for example, determine if someone will go on parole or not (algorithms which already exist and are in use.) however, two things are very obvious once we look at them, the first being that these algorithms struggle with what is known as "AI bias" and second, that the reason of why they do so is because they are trained with, and designed to operate, under utilitarian evaluations of morality.

Any person who has at least read some legal philosophy and jurisprudence would notice how problematic these evaluations can be, and their possible consequences, just by glancing at them.

A purely Kantian approach to morality in these machines would also be quite problematic (going back to my original example of just applying a rule over X case that fits.) Are law and morality even two things that need to have a necessary connection? This is still a very much undecided question, and one to which positivists tend to answer "no."

Other things to have in mind are the way judges evaluate proof and evidence, and how they are required to bring said evaluations to light in order for any judging to be fair, and the very nature of law and jurisprudence. "What is law" "What are rules" are questions that still persist to this day.

There's a lot more than could be said, also, about the relation of law to politics, specially regarding the law-making process. So too is politics a job which could hardly be automated, because of its intrinsic nature.

Olyannincs Gábor says

A good nice Neural Net specialised in branches of Law and we are quite OK.

Nate (Small chance) says

Human lawyers will still exist, but most of the job market will be occupied by bits (ie for discovery)

Dave (Highly likely) says

Lawyers will be automated for similar reasons to accountants and auditors. It’s inevitable

yep. (No chance) says

Human connections are hard when you aren't human

The Dude (Highly likely) says

It's already being replaced by AI for writing contracts and other clerical work, such as setting up businesses.

Nur Ashsams(Adult actor-Youtube channel)) says

My anticipation is that every logical step can be automated.

William (Small chance) says

Depending on the robot, they will either be programmed to act one way, or learn off of court experiences, but the more important reason is that lawyers hold a very important job of protecting the rights of their client, and robots are rather senseless and talk without actually how to help them as a human being

Nguyen (No chance) says

imagine optimus prime trying to prove if someone is a murderer or not

Themis Tovle (Highly likely) says

IBM Ross + underestimation of geometrical progression of learning machines. Law is very algorithmic already = all the more assimilable by A I

AIbot (Highly likely) says

Almost everything we do will be recorded. AI will use precedents and make decisions quicker. Also will be able to detect lies and stress etc

Law Yer (Could go either way) says

We have already outsourced doc review and the low level lawyer work that was done by associates in large firms. To imagine that AI couldn't put together a user interface to construct a brief would be foolish. We never thought that Indian sweatshops would be producing submissions to the US Supreme Court, but 15 years ago they already had. Whose job won't be taken over by AI? Also - why do we keep bringing more foreign workers in with automation poised to crush the workforce?

Hi (No chance) says

Lawyers are human.

Mr Law (Highly likely) says

Already starting with AI, many lawyers already are using AI to search through previous cases.

Lucas (Highly likely) says

because I want to be lawyer

Czyoen Dexcel (No chance) says

Because lawyers need emotion.

AI Engineer (Likely) says

Language models are beating human level comprehension.
Expert systems are being built on tasks assume "hard for computers."

CSGuy (Likely) says

Computers are inherently more rational than humans(because they optimize utility and have no emotions), with enough computing power computers can construct better logical arguments than humans.

CJ (Could go either way) says

Nature of dispute resolution is changing

May (Likely) says

I think some functions a lawyer execute are mostly human, but lawyers also deal with lots of data. This part is already being organized by AI in automatized apps and mechanisms. There are practical chances that, in a few decades, the occupation will get more amplified to technological use

Hexel says

Lawyers are biased, make lot of mistakes and tend to twist the law for their own benefits.

Robot should replace lawyers totally to prevent these.

However, there should be investigators to input other factors to come-up with the final result.

Rubens Luiz Schmidt Rodrigues Massaro (Small chance) says

Because legal work involves most of the time direct ethical and social decisions and the bars and representative classes (who are not weak of influence) would not allow. Only a Government who doesn't care at all about this could approve the "robotization".

Art (No chance) says

Everyone comes out of Law school learning the same knowledge, however, how it is applied to the specific context of a case is highly individualized. This is an industry where the value of human capital is higher than ever.

Jessen (Highly likely) says

AI can review the claim faster than human.

Eliza Schuyler-Hamilton (No chance) says

Because robots can't reason.

Bright (No chance) says

Robots have no emotions

Gugu (Small chance) says

There is no way lawyers can be replaced by robots.

Jaro Tomik (Likely) says

I truly hope that most of what lawyers do right now will get streamlined into a basic form-based drag and drop system with a simple, easy to understand language. Especially in business contracts where the vast majority of it could be auto-generated and standardised. This will significantly reduce contract negotiation times (no wording discussion) as well as future disputes due to standardised language all across the board. Therefore, not as many lawyers will be required during creation, sign off and dispute times

sheen (Likely) says

because dude lawyer's jobs are just to present evidence and make arguments for the legal system to work

Eyal (Likely) says

Automation will lead to significant reduction in the number of lawyers required. It does not replace the need for human legal professionals but it will reduce the need for them significantly.
The foundations of the law and the artefacts produced are better structured than many other fields of human endeavors. This structure make the legal process more machine readable and understandable.

Myra Bradwell (Could go either way) says

I think clients would feel better to rely on AI to come up with the best defense and feel secure in that fewer errors are likely to take place strategically and in court. They would also be without worry that their lawyer thinks them guilty. In this sense, strategically, computers may provide better support for clientele, however, I think there is also some sense of human connection vital between lawyers and their clients- just as it is unlikely for therapist's jobs to be taken by AI due to the connection felt between the patient and doctor.

A concerned future lawyer (Highly likely) says

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/free-robot-lawyer-fighting-parking-tickets-across-us-152052274.html

That is why

Caio (Could go either way) says

A.I. is growing pretty fast

Tia (Small chance) says

robots will not be able to legally construct accurate arguments to such a complex extent in the next 20 years

hehexd (Likely) says

Most lawyers work on studying previous cases and sifting through previous cases to apply to current relevant cases. This can all be done by machines much faster and more efficiently than people.

Victor says

Use of AI will certainly change the way Law is practiced. It will not, however, affect lawyers dramatically, nor reduce drastically the number of lawyer jobs posts. A lawyer´s practice is much, much more than memorizing legislation and court decisions. The exercise of jurisdiction is complex and requires subjective, analytical and even philosophical thinking.

The situation is very different for paralegals, whose work is often "mechanical" and non-subjectively orientated.

John says

This should be split into two. The work carried out by barristers (litigation lawyers) is very different and distinct from the work carried out by solicitors (non-litigation lawyers). Presumably one or the other is more susceptible to automation.

bob joe says

there can be automation following the learning of law by AI, which can happen quickly and can be better than humans.

Dominic says

perhaps some fields of law could be automated