And… what’s the lawyer for if the software can solve the issue?

eptcyka 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Same as with programmers, you hire someone to be responsible, not to produce code or legal arguments.

jagged-chisel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You need someone willing to defend your argument in court. Someone who knows the process. Someone who knows the particular attitudes of the audience being addressed (judge, jury.)

That’s what the lawyer is for. Most simple things, especially where the law and your case are clear, can be handled by someone without a lawyer. It’s the other stuff where you need the lawyer.

▲

theF00l 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Many Big Law firms do mostly transactions (eg M&A, restructuring, tax magic etc). Big part there is relationship management and knowing the system.

Not sure how many lawyers they will need there, one partner + one associate + AI will be able to do much more.

▲

nicce 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is kinda unique to the US were presentation, performance and using emotions matter a lot, instead of cold, neutral logic and arguments.

▲

thunderfork 16 hours ago | parent [-]

One thing I think a lot of programmer-types fail to understand about law is that "rationality" and so on as we believe we understand it doesn't really exist. One of the most irrational human beliefs is in the existence of the rational human.

	▲	cwmoore 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, c’mon, let’s be reasonable

▲

lordnacho 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The issue isn't solved by the software, all the software does is to find the relevant information and present it in some form.

You still need a lawyer to judge what to find, and what the likely response of the judicial system will be.

▲

freejazz 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The software doesn't solve the issue, they sell services to lawyers. They don't sell legal services to the public.