Friday, November 11, 2005
Stacy, Dave and Nathan never sleep, they have virtually limitless memories and they get smarter every day. They are whizzes when it comes to legal analysis.
Question: Stacy, Dave and Nathan are . . .
(a) Wunnelles at Harvard Law
(b) Recent graduates from Suffolk Law
(c) Old alumni from Southwestern Law
(d) Robot lawyers
Although C is a tempting answer (I say that as an SW alum who never sleeps enough, and gets smarter every day – although my memory is so poor I can't remember if I was smart yesterday), D is the "most correct" answer.
According to a November 10 story by Lesley Stones in an online journal, Business Day, robotic lawyers are joining law firms.
A lawyer who has ordered several claims, “Although their duties would be limited and very much controlled at first, we consider them an important strategic investment for the future." Doesn't that sound like he's describing a first-year associate?
According to experts at the University of Texas, " ... artificial intelligence technology will let computers autonomously reason with the law to draw legal conclusions."
That made me wonder about my job security. Big time. Remember (those of you old enough) how we had to learn "times tables" and long division? Remember learning how to find square roots? Then calculators came along. Then computers. Suddenly, not only do people no longer need to learn long division ... they don't even need to learn to spell! So why in the world will we need to teach law students how to "reason with the law to draw legal conclusions" if robotic personnel can do the job (presumably) better, faster, cheaper?
Consider signing up for evening computer classes. (djt)