Controversial ‘Robo-Lawyer’ AI to face trial next month in traffic cases

English

Joshua Browder, CEO of startup DoNotPay, tweeted a cheeky offer to give $1 million to any lawyer who wants to don a pair of AirPods and testify in the Supreme Court, echoing exactly what the AI-enabled company’s “robot robot” is a lawyer.” – He speaks.

Judging by social media response, the proposal was meant to spark controversy and generate headlines. Browder said in an interview that he has not received a single response to this particular proposal, but interested parties have contacted him about cases at the appellate, federal and state court levels.

DoNotPay’s robot lawyer will make its first foray into actual lawsuits next month, when the technology is used to covertly try two municipal traffic court cases.

In one case, the respondent will be fed through headphones, what to say. At another Zoom hearing, DoNotPay will offer the respondent a teleprompter script. The startup pays for the participant’s ticket, regardless of the result.

“Some lawyers cost $2,000 an hour, and most people can’t afford legal help,” Browder said. “What we’re trying to do is prove our technology with these test cases, and then advocate for access to the tools of justice in court.”

Most courts and jurisdictions expressly prohibit unauthorized recording and Internet-connected devices, but the company’s team has chosen certain places where these tools are allowed, as well as areas with looser standards on who can provide legal advice to parties. The company keeps the names and whereabouts of participants confidential.

“We’re only doing this as a proof of concept in two areas where it’s clearly not against the letter of the law,” Browder said, acknowledging, however, that “it’s probably against the spirit of the rules.”

But these rules exist for a reason, says Alphonse Provinziano, senior lawyer at the Los Angeles-based firm Provinziano & Associates. In addition to a threat to the integrity of the judiciary, he sees the potential risk of being charged with contempt of court if the judge gets wind of something dishonest going on.

“They call him a robot lawyer, but he is not a lawyer. By definition, he does not have a license to practice law,” Provinziano said. “They provide legal information through AI, which is amazing, but this is not a lawyer.”

Provinziano is not opposed to expanding the use of artificial intelligence technology in courtrooms and advocates allowing audio recordings in family law cases to provide transcripts. He also believes that AI legal aid can be used as consultants in family law or traffic court cases where the vast majority of people are not represented.

However, he said that DoNotPay’s approach could “create animosity” and that a more transparent approach would help better serve the public appropriately.

“It’s like they’re trying to be the Banksy of legal news services,” Provinziano said. “That kind of attention won’t work in the long run if it gets backlash because the law is on the lawyers’ side.”

“We want to fight back”

Browder founded DoNotPay in 2015 after gaining a reputation as the man his friends and family approached for ticket cancellations or reduced fees.

After receiving a flood of requests, the entrepreneur used his background in computer science to develop automated templates that could help with various consumer rights issues.

The company sells a subscription service that can help users negotiate everything from reducing a Comcast bill to canceling a gym membership and breaking leases. The startup is currently working on an artificial intelligence product that will help lower medical bills. So far, Browder said the company has successfully processed more than 2 million cases.

The 17-person company raised $25 million worth of investors, including a $10 million round led by Andreessen Horowitz that valued it at $210 million. Browder recently moved from San Francisco to New York and is opening a new headquarters on the East Coast. San Francisco gross receipts tax.

Over the past year, DoNotPay has adopted generative conversational AI technology such as GPT-3 from OpenAI − basis of ChatGPT— means that his tool has evolved from certain patterns into reactive mutual conversations.

This comes with its own technical difficulties. First, AI tends to exaggerate. While exaggeration can work to help negotiate a lower cable TV bill in an individual case, this type of accountability won’t work in a courtroom.

Secondly, generative AI talks too much. To solve this problem, Browder said that the company’s technology actually relies on two separate AI models: one determines whether to speak, and the second determines what to say.

Browder said he understands the criticism of the company’s strategy, but believes bold action is needed to advance AI legal services. He said he hopes at least five states will allow the use of AI in the courtroom to help consumers.

“If everyone just followed the rules, it wouldn’t work,” Browder said. “Everyone hates the system and we want to fight back.”

English