The Sunday Times Mirror - TPH: Replacing lawyers?

Techno Page Helpline (TPH) is our help desk that is dedicated to solving your technical and not so technical, silicon and carbon-based problems and ethical dilemmas. If you can withstand ‘high-voltage sarcasm,’ ‘low-frequency cynicism’ and new-age computer wisdom; outsource your questions and comments to us at technopage@gmail.com and share a few bytes of humour. When you write in, don't forget to add 'TPH' in the subject line!

Dear TPH,
I am a lawyer by profession, but I read your page every week because I have a keen interest in Information Technology. I like the new changes you have made to your page recently because you have made Techno Page fun to read and easy to understand.

I have been interested in Artificial Intelligence for a long time now. I am fascinated by the possibility that one day, computers and other machines we use in our day-to-day lives will be able to think for themselves and act intelligently. Recently I read an article on the Internet about 'expert systems' that are being used by big companies to aid in business decisions. Can such systems be used in the legal profession, for example instead of a lawyer to obtain legal advice?

Dear R.S.,
Even though you are a lawyer, I really like you already… seriously! Actually, even though I am an IT professional, I have a very keen interest in law and I am really, really upset that the magazine does not have a law page!!! However, that's not only because a law page would just kill the beloved magazine… but lawyers demand to have their own chambers, when we struggle to find even a spare desk and chair for them at the office.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a fascinating field that combines many academic disciplines and a great deal of philosophy too. It’s one of those fields in computer science that hasn't quite lived up to the hype that surrounds it, but that's simply because most of the hype has been generated so far by science fiction than science facts. It is difficult to predict whether we will ever be able to duplicate human intelligence in a machine.

The latest dialogue about AI is about whether 'intelligence' is purely a logical process in the first place. There is a school of thought that makes the argument that 'emotions' play an equally and sometimes a more dominant role in the human decision-making process. Even though it would be relatively simple and straightforward to 'program' the logical thought process, it will be far more difficult to 'code' or duplicate emotions in a machine. Then again, we still don't have a solid understanding about what 'knowledge' is in terms of being able to duplicate human knowledge in a machine, because knowledge is an integral part of intelligence.

However, for some reason, I don't think it is necessary to have any form of 'artificial' (or 'natural') intelligence in order to make a lawyer. Don't get me wrong, I have a fair number of 'learned friends' who are lawyers and I have a healthy respect for their intelligence. What I actually mean is the fact that 'legal reasoning' is a fairly straightforward set of rules, facts and principles that are easy to programme into a computer that has no capacity for AI.

At least in theory, it is possible to program all the laws of the land including statutory law, cases of legal precedence and legal principals in a computer system in such a way that it could provide 'legal advice' in return. The accuracy of this legal advice will depend on how well the program is designed and structured and how well the programmers have captured the essence of all those laws.

In practice however, it is a fairly complex task that needs a lot of cross discipline expertise. (Perhaps, you and I could partner to make the first ever comprehensive legal expert system, but the sad part is that while my expertise will always be needed to update and maintain the system, your expertise will be made redundant as soon as the system commences operation!) The judicial process on the other hand is a system that would need more AI capabilities, because for example, judges of the Supreme Court are expected to interpret the meaning of the law in a domain that stretches beyond their semantics. I might be accused of contempt if I comment any more on that, so I will speak no more on that subject.

However, the one system that absolutely needs to be automated is the legislature. While all my friends and colleagues have busied themselves with using their technological expertise to design and develop IT-based 'business solutions', I have been fighting a lone war and shouting from the bottom of my gut that what we need is initiative on that!