A 19-Year-Old Made A Free Robot Lawyer That Has Appealed $3M In Parking Tickets (businessinsider.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A 19-Year-Old Made A Free Robot Lawyer That Has Appealed $3M In Parking Tickets (businessinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Saturday February 20, 2016 @08:37AM from the why-people-hate-robots dept.

schwit1 writes: Hiring a lawyer for a parking-ticket appeal is not only a headache, but it can also cost more than the ticket itself. Depending on the case and the lawyer, an appeal -- a legal process where you argue out of paying the fine -- can cost between $400 to $900. But with the help of a robot made by British programmer Joshua Browder, 19, it costs nothing. Browder's bot handles questions about parking-ticket appeals in the UK. Since launching in late 2015, it has successfully appealed $3 million worth of tickets. He is cutting into the government trough and lawyers' jobs. That's a double whammy. How long is it before the bar association and government get automated lawyers disqualified?

156 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 08:45 · Score: 0

Maybe this line of thinking will eliminate the parasitic greed of lawyers as well?
1. Re:Awesome! by Foxhoundz · 2016-02-20 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  OR usher in the new age of high-frequency lawmaking! Though, with the way our congress is moving right now, it would likely get stuck in a recursion trying to pass and repeal laws over and over again.
2. Re: Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Charged, judged, appealed and executed within 5 minutes thanks to RoboCop, RoboJudge and RoboLawyer.
3. Re: Awesome! by TapeCutter · 2016-02-20 12:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's was my first thought, it's likely a robot issued the fine, so it's obvious a robot should have the right to dispute it.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
4. Re:Awesome! by jrumney · 2016-02-20 14:19 · Score: 2
  
  High frequency lawmaking would only benefit the robotic lawyers to the further detriment of traditional lawyers. This is one profession which AI could seriously bring huge benefits at the cost of many jobs. The entry level lawyer basically spends their life doing searches of laws to find something relevant to their bosses clients' cases, something that computers have been better at for almost 2 decades now.
5. Re: Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 17:04 · Score: 0
  
  Judge Dredd!
6. Re:Awesome! by netwiz · 2016-02-21 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how is putting lawyers out of business a bad thing? Other than the unemployment, these guys in specific have been some of the most usurious jackasses, problematic to a fault, and if machines can do this to them first, then there's hope for preventing large-scale unemployment by mechanized labor.
7. Re: Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-23 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  Except the whole jury of ones peers thing.
  Robots issuing orders, tickets and fines should be illegal.
Lawers should be put out of job by mmiscool · 2016-02-20 08:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

A world with less lawers is a nicer world.
1. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm surprised they haven't been automated out of a job yet - Legal-eze seems like programming code.
2. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Scoldog · 2016-02-20 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  A world with less lawers is a nicer world.
  Can you imagine a world without lawyers?
  
  https://youtu.be/m2VxpTMAbas?t...
  
  --
  This space for rent
3. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by NEDHead · 2016-02-20 08:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That should be "fewer lawyers". A world with better spellers would be nice too. As would a world with a little attention to proper grammar.
  Alas, the latter two worlds are by far the more likely.
4. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Tal+Cohen · 2016-02-20 09:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, "less lawyers" is grammatically fine. Ask a linguist (in this case, the co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language).
  
  --
  - Tal Cohen
5. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by AK+Marc · 2016-02-20 09:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And even in the strict sense, you can't count lawyers, like you can't count cockroaches. There are too many of them, and nobody wants the job of counting them. So less would be correct by all rules.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
6. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  It depends all on your world perspective, though. If you're on the outside looking in, sure, lawyers seem to be socio-economic parasites.
  They help create laws that justify their existence, whether it's on the application of the law or defense from the law. They can be ambulance-chasers, opportunistic, etc.
  On the other hand, the collective "we", and our varying interpretations of "right" behaviors and "justice" between each other or our associations, necessitate the very existence of lawyers since we are usually so crappy at resolving differences with each other, whether it be neighbor-neighbor conflicts, "you wronged me", etc.
  And this isn't even getting corporations and business into it.
  Lawyers suck, yes. Until you (or I...or we) need one.
7. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Unfortunately, not true. By dint of the fact that lawyer has a plural form, it is necessarily countable. We wouldn't say "much lawyers". Many and few are the "correct" quantifiers for countable nouns. "Less" is becoming more commonly used in conjunction with group plurals, especially irregular ones. It still sounds weird to me to hear phrases like "less dollars".
  Source: I'm a professional grammar nazi.
8. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  What about a world without pedants?
  I'd drink to that.
9. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by wonkey_monkey · 2016-02-20 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  That should be "fewer lawyers".
  We'll see what my lawyer has to say about that.
  
  As would a world with a little attention to proper grammar.
  I'll have to ask Clippy what he thinks of you starting a new sentence with a subordinating conjunction. It certainly looks wrong to me.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
10. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Would you use "less sand?" I suspect that you would, yet the word "sand" can have a plural form:
  STREAMS that glide in orient plains, Never bound by Winter’s chains; Glowing here on golden sands, There immix’d with foulest stains From Tyranny’s empurpled hands;
  Properly, you would find its quantified form as "fewer sands," which you will find in good literature, yet we speak often of "less" sand in reference to its uncountable bulk. One must not assume all words which admit plural forms, like "sands" from "sand," necessarily therefore take "fewer" and are countable, for some words may be construed differently depending on their meaning.
11. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Alumoi · 2016-02-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  I beg to differ. What we need is clear laws, written in common terms.
  Then we can round up all the lawyers and send them up into the Sun.
  We'll just keep the judges and we'll be fine.
12. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by St.Creed · 2016-02-20 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  Actually that's pretty accurate. ISO TR9007:1987 defines a conceptual model and states that the applications for such a model are not limited to IT only, but apply to any rule-based system, specifically mentioning the area of law.
  So yes, laws could be conceivable be based upon a conceptual model, and statements could be validated against it.
  
  --
  Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
13. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by mysidia · 2016-02-20 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Try As [it] would also be with a world having a little attention to proper grammar.
14. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  When you need one is when they suck the most, since they tend to fuck off with little regard for your interests.
  Lawyers don't help resolve conflicts when they can't manage their own business properly, let alone look out for yours.
15. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nouns can clearly have both a countable and uncountable form. I drink coffee every day. I had a coffee this morning. I drink fewer coffees than Bob, who drinks more coffee than Sara. Using a typically uncountable noun in a plural form, such as sands, alters its meaning. In this case it means distinct bodies of sand, in the same way that we say waters and moneys. Context is key, and the fact that many typically uncountable nouns have an archaic, formal or technical plural form doesn't change the historical rule governing related quantifiers. The fact that we have started to change the way fewer and less are used is fine. Grammar should describe how we speak and write, not control us.
16. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Noah+Haders · 2016-02-20 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  this is the problem with soft sciences. The article in the link talks about how the term fewer is falling out of favor in common vernacular in the educated population, when all he really means is he and his friends don't know grammar.
17. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-20 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  "sands" is a poetic form, of course, as in "sands of time."
18. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by jklovanc · 2016-02-20 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Would you use "less sand?" I suspect that you would, yet the word "sand" can have a plural form:
  Notice "less sand" uses the singular form for "sand" while the OP used the plural for of lawyer. Do you think "less sands" is correct? The problem is using less and the singular/uncountable form.
  Another point is that "sands" means and expanse of sand and is not a direct plural meaning many pieces of sand. "Lawyers" does not mean an expanse of lawyers therefore there is no similarity. As for the number of lawyers being uncountable that is untrue. All countable objects have an upper limit. The upper limit on the number of lawyers is the number of people on earth. Therefore the number of lawyers is countable.
19. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by jklovanc · 2016-02-20 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  What about a world where a single language does not drift in so many directions that people can no longer understand each other.
20. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by peragrin · 2016-02-20 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Judges are primarily experienced lawyers.
  The life cycle of a legalese
  Intern, legal assistant, lawyer, experienced lawyer, judge and/or politician.
  Sometimes they skip steps or do them all.
  If you wipe out lawyers then you have no new judges. As it is we are wiping out interns and legal assistants which has cut the number of lawyers sharply. If you don't have low level jobs people with skills for high level jobs don't appear.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
21. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by guruevi · 2016-02-20 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Judges are typically lawyers that either "graduated" or got elected to the bench. But you need lawyers to interpret the laws, the judge, in these cases at least (tickets and non-criminal/non-family law) only interprets which parts of the explanations are more correct.
  In case of parking and traffic tickets, it's relatively easy to argue the cases. You technically only have to cast some doubt on the explanation of the cop and things like red light and parking tickets in big cities don't even have any cops (or judges for that matter) involved so you can argue (in common law countries at least) against a number of basic, constitutional or conflicting statutes. The "you commit a crime every day" is true but also goes for the state exceeding it's statutory powers, you just got to know which ones apply in your case.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
22. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I saw Back to the Future Part II
  A world worth living in.
23. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by fahrbot-bot · 2016-02-20 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, "less lawyers" is grammatically fine. Ask a linguist (in this case, the co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language).
  Actually, that article to which you linked contains the guy's opinion and a *plea* to abandon the different uses for "fewer" (fewer beers) and "less" (less beer) in some cases -- like, "Your package will arrive in seven days or less" vs. "Your package will arrive in seven days or fewer" -- and he makes some good points, but he's wrong. People should learn the correct grammar instead.
  Even in the context of that article, "fewer lawyers" is correct, not "less" and, as far as I'm concerned, the sign for the express lane in your grocery store should still say: "10 items or fewer" - not "less".
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
24. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by wonkey_monkey · 2016-02-20 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say I didn't understand what was meant, but it doesn't read as gramatically correct to me.
  It's the difference between "Pizza tastes nice, as does ice cream" - where the conjunction links the two halves of the sentence - and "Pizza tastes nice. As does ice cream" where the second sentence has no meaning independent of the first.
  But then "Pizza tastes nice. And so does ice cream" does look (marginally) acceptable to me, so perhaps it's just a personal preference.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
25. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  The laws are complicated because of lawyers.
26. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by ATMAvatar · 2016-02-20 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Ugly, buggy, spaghetti code. Therac 25 has nothing on US code.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
27. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the lawyers are ground up and the individual nature of each can be said to be agglomerated in the the new 'ground up lawyer'. Each additional ground lawyer would yield more ground up lawyer, and if you gave some away you would have less ground up lawyer. But until their ground up giving away a lawyer would result in you having fewer lawyers that you could grind up, as you say.
28. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by ShanghaiBill · 2016-02-20 12:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually, "less lawyers" is grammatically fine.
  It is grammatically correct, but the meaning is different. If you start with 10 lawyers, and you shoot one of them, then you have fewer lawyers. But if you start with 10 lawyers, and you starve them so they lose 20 pounds each, you now have less lawyers.
  Personally, I am okay with either shooting them or starving them.
29. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Jawnn · 2016-02-20 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  this is the problem with soft sciences. The article in the link talks about how the term fewer is falling out of favor in common vernacular in the educated population, when all he really means is he and his friends don't know grammar.
  ...and judging by what appears regularly, in this forum at least, he has many, many friends.
30. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Hognoxious · 2016-02-20 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Just because it ends in s doesn't mean it's a plural or that it's countable. Would it make sense to say "I had three sands then someone gave me another so I had four sands"?
  Also, rules are often relaxed in poetry. Poetic license isn't some kind of permit.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
31. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by TapeCutter · 2016-02-20 12:55 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, the law and mathematics are both axiomatic systems (if you assume Judges are perfect umpires).
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
32. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by ATMAvatar · 2016-02-20 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  I would use less sand, i.e., fewer grains of sand.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
33. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Hognoxious · 2016-02-20 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, if you starved them you'd have less lawyer, not less lawyers.
  Imagine they're chickens.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
34. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  I beg to differ. What we need is clear laws, written in common terms.
  You know that guy who says "Why don't they just make the whole plane out of the stuff they make the black box from?", and seriously thinks it's a good idea?
  Well, you have something in common with that guy.
35. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by CanadianMacFan · 2016-02-20 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Screw that. Dig a big hole, drop them in, and cover it up. If I can't get to outer space then they shouldn't get the experience of a lifetime, even if it is to their death.
36. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by mysidia · 2016-02-20 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  As does ice cream" where the second sentence has no meaning independent of the first.
  Still a valid sentence. It's not grammatically invalid to have sentences which are dependent on the context in which they appear. (Requiring another sentence before or after, to understand the meaning)
37. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  Your period is in the wrong place, unless you're in the UK.
38. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Without lawyers the only people to interpret laws would be the authorities, even if the construction process of a law would be a communal, say an AI-assisted public wiki with expert and public input. Welcome to the dictatorship of the bureaucracy!
39. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 17:59 · Score: 0
  
  What a lawyery critique.
40. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  As a lawyer I beg to differ. There is nothing that we do that wouldn't be solved by a simpler legal system.
  I hate what I do. I wish I had not chosen this career when I was a stupid fucking 19 year old.
41. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  Why bash lawyers for something created by politicians and councils looking to raise revenue by in-direct taxes? I would not even consider someone working on 'parking tickets' to even be practicing law, that would be an amazing waste of a law degree (yes I know ... McDonald's degrees etc). I would also be surprised if lawyers weren't freely offering support for this type of technology, it would help the public and the profession at the same time.
  As a lawyer I fully support this work and hope it helps a lot more people avoid unfair, or unjust, parking tickets (without extra fees !!!). This is the natural evolution of technology and the law, when something can be reduced down to an automated or repeatable problem the lawyers are supposed to move on because the fees necessary to do the work are no longer beneficial to society.
  What concerns me more is that the ticketing system is so broken that these repeatable issues exist!?! Seriously, why does it require a lawyer to point out the individuals rights to challenge the ticket? This should be on the ticket itself, or on a website so that the recipient is fully informed. If we need to bot to make that more accessible then I am grateful for developers like this, but someone should fire the councilmen who failed to fix this mess!!
42. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't take into account the average grain size of the samds
43. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  Actually that is very accurate .... when teaching engineers how to read contracts etc I use programming code as an example.
44. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by doccus · 2016-02-21 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Was it Dickens who said "First shoot all the lawyrers?" Certainlty the sentiment is as old as time itself...
45. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  I had three sands - white sand, pale brown sand, and dark brown sand. Someone took my white sand, so now I have fewer sands. Someone took some of my pale brown sand, so now I have less sand.
  I had three lawyers - sam, val, and pat. Sam left off practicing law, so now I have fewer lawyers. Val got distracted, and now I have a lesser lawyer. Pat had an uncountably large team of lawyers, and some of them stopped practicing, so now Pat has ???
46. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  Just because it ends in s doesn't mean it's a plural or that it's countable. Would it make sense to say "I had three sands then someone gave me another so I had four sands"?
  If you had three sands (eg. types of sand or bodies of sand?) and someone gave you another sand (eg. a sand that doesn't fit into the previous classification), then you would have four sands. The plural word sands used without a number generally means an expanse or uncountably large amount of sand.
47. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  I thought it was Shakespeare.
48. Re:Lawers should be put out of job by tehcyder · 2016-02-23 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, "less lawyers" is grammatically fine. Ask a linguist (in this case, the co-author of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language).
  All that blog amounts to saying is that, in informal usage, people don't necessarily speak grammatically. Which is pretty bleedin' obvious.
  
  It doesn't mean there isn't a useful distinction between mass nouns and count nouns.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
49. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by tehcyder · 2016-02-23 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Just because it ends in s doesn't mean it's a plural or that it's countable. Would it make sense to say "I had three sands then someone gave me another so I had four sands"?
  Also, rules are often relaxed in poetry. Poetic license isn't some kind of permit.
  I once wrote a limerick in ten seconds: I had my poetic licence pulled for speeding.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
50. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-23 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Less lawyers, he had more previously.
51. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-23 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Poetic licence IS a permit for debauchery.
  My question is: is there a different then between a poetic licence and an artistic one?
52. Re: Lawers should be put out of job by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-23 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  They're*
  But you make valid points, more lawyers ground up are more lawyer and thus less lawyers for the wood chipper results in less lawyer for you. Scraps, scrap and?
Robot lawyer? by penguinoid · 2016-02-20 08:55 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm not going to hire any robot lawyer unless it can prove it is soulless.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
1. Re:Robot lawyer? by SeaFox · 2016-02-20 09:23 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  How would that make it any different from a regular lawyer?
2. Re:Robot lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  That's the qualification that it's passed the bar, obviously.
3. Re:Robot lawyer? by davester666 · 2016-02-20 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  Have you looked into a lawyer's eyes or talked with one? They manage to make it very clear they have no soul. And that the only things important to them are maximizing their billable hours and not personally going to jail.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
4. Re:Robot lawyer? by Kjella · 2016-02-20 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not going to hire any robot lawyer unless it can prove it is soulless.
  Isn't that a bit like asking a fish if it can swim?
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re: Robot lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's cheaper.
6. Re:Robot lawyer? by penguinoid · 2016-02-20 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Know any lawyers that have done 86,000 pro-bono cases?
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
7. Re:Robot lawyer? by Hognoxious · 2016-02-20 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm by no means a pescatologist, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was at least one species that can't and just crawls along the bottom or something.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
8. Re:Robot lawyer? by caseih · 2016-02-20 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  I have, actually. I know a couple. These two in particular are some of the most honest, loyal, trustworthy people I know. They enjoy legal minutia, but they also enjoy putting things proper and right. And they like to help people. They agree there are lots of legal things we're required to do (and pay them for) that are pretty silly. But they don't make the laws; politicians do.
9. Re: Robot lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 18:53 · Score: 0
  
  Does Batman count?
10. Re:Robot lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  I'm by no means a pescatologist, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was at least one species that can't and just crawls along the bottom or something.
  And lawyers with souls are just as rarely encountered.
11. Re:Robot lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm by no means a pescatologist,
  Bzzzt, wrong century. Nobody in the medical or biological professions these days wants to be called a Latin name. It's an "ichthyologist". Similarly, insectologists are dead. They are now entomologists. You could not really call them anything in proper English anyway because "indentists" is too close to the "dentist" who is still stuck in Latin but practices good Greek odontology. The Germans had the good old "Kerbtierkundler" long centuries ago which is actually more accurate than either the obsolete "Insektologe" or the rad "Entomologe" since its not just "notch knower" but "notched animal knower". More content, fewer syllables.
  Alas, the battle is lost. So ichthyologist for everything fishy.
12. Re:Robot lawyer? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  The word you're looking for is "ichthyologist."
13. Re:Robot lawyer? by david_thornley · 2016-02-22 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm willing to testify under oath that most of the lawyers I've talked to appeared to have souls, and the remainder might well have had their souls backed up on disk.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This isn't really a threat to lawyers but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 08:56 · Score: 0

is in fact a threat to the legal system itself. Our legal system is built around the idea that a vast majority of people will simply pay the fines/plea.
1. Re:This isn't really a threat to lawyers but... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  "Should have paid the fine!"
  -Oblivion guard
2. Re:This isn't really a threat to lawyers but... by CanadianMacFan · 2016-02-20 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  So it's not really a threat to the legal system but a threat to the city finances that have come to depend on the fines as a regular source of income instead of using them as a deterrent.
"automated lawyers disqualified"? Probably not. by Neil_Brown · 2016-02-20 08:57 · Score: 5, Informative
In the UK, there is no monopoly on giving legal advice — only six things in the legal sphere require particular entitlement ("reserved activities"):
- (a) the exercise of a right of audience;
- (b) the conduct of litigation;
- (c) reserved instrument activities;
- (d) probate activities;
- (e) notarial activities;
- (f) the administration of oaths.
Anyone can give legal advice, so prohibiting just software from doing so would seem a very odd move.
The professional body for solicitors in England and Wales — the Law Society — recently released a report on "The Future Of Legal Services" and, at section 4.2, it talks through (very briefly) a number of the technology changes which will either be useful to solicitors or else challenging them.
1. Re:"automated lawyers disqualified"? Probably not. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  As the parent indicates, non-lawyers can do most stuff in the UK if they want to. That doesn't make it a good idea but they can.
  For example, if you're doing a fairly routine real estate transaction, say, you're selling a house for cash to a friend who already lives in the area, you can just do all the paperwork with no lawyers or experts. Fill out the forms, send them off, transfer the money, all done. The government requires that you register the land transfer (most likely it's previously registered, so you just need a transfer form saying who owns it now) and somebody might have to pay tax (so you need more forms that say how much was paid for the property, if you lie you can get in some pretty bad trouble). But no lawyers or other licensed professionals are needed.
  Or suppose you're being sued by some idiot who believes a bunch of crazy stuff. You don't have to hire a lawyer, you can just go along to the court, tell them why it's all crazy nonsense, if there's important procedural stuff like you have to say the right words at the right time the court will explain how.
  Non-lawyers can even appear, where a lawyer might, to help someone else in a criminal trial. Usually you'll get a court-assigned barrister, but if you don't want one you can still have your mate Bill come. They don't get all the privileges a lawyer would get as "officer of the court" but they can help you, fetch stuff, make notes, all that is fine. Like maybe you're accused of drink driving, you go to court, you're going to explain that you weren't driving, the "car" you were in is a movie prop and doesn't have an engine, nobody could drive it. So you don't want some lawyer getting it all wrong, but you're a bit nervous so you get your best mate Steve to come, Steve just sits there, nodding along, and he fetches some water when your mouth is a bit dry at one point. All fine.
2. Re:"automated lawyers disqualified"? Probably not. by tomhath · 2016-02-21 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  In the UK, there is no monopoly on giving legal advice
  Same here in the US. You can't charge for the service unless you are a member of the bar. But if go into a bar and ask for legal advice you will get it from everyone there.
3. Re:"automated lawyers disqualified"? Probably not. by tehcyder · 2016-02-23 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Similarly, you are quite entitled to have your mate Dave prepare your tax return or pull your teeth out. It's fine until something goes wrong.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 08:58 · Score: 0

There's still court costs, energy costs, material costs, etc. A fraction of the expense of a lawyer, but not nothing.
1. Re:Not nothing by AK+Marc · 2016-02-20 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  There's no court for parking fines, they aren't criminal acts, so they keep down costs by eliminating court. You can contest a ticket for free by filing the correct form. Though, I've done it in multiple cities in multiple countries, never for London, where this is aimed (or any of the UK).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
2. Re:Not nothing by MrL0G1C · 2016-02-20 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need a criminal act for a court to be used, courts are also used for civil actions like disagreements about money. In the UK fines can be contested in civil courts.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
3. Re:Not nothing by AK+Marc · 2016-02-20 21:48 · Score: 1
  
  In the US, most places pass special laws to make infractions and code violations uncontestable, except to the authority that issued them. That means you can contest your ticket to the parking authority, but they don't need to hold a hearing or anything to find you re-guilty, and you hae no means of appeal, short of suing the government (something that rarely succeeds). An automated contesting bot would be useful, and wouldn't generate any secondary costs in many places.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:Not nothing by packrat0x · 2016-02-21 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, you can appeal. You have to appeal to the circuit court (called superior court in some states). That means filing fees ($100-$300) and (usually) required use of a lawyer--at your expense. Thus an "appeal" can cost more than paying the fine.
  
  --
  227-3517
5. Re:Not nothing by MrL0G1C · 2016-02-21 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty dreadful, I'm glad we have the option of a third party to oversee justice here. Without the option of court, the govt has no incentive to be just during appeals.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Full employment for lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:21 · Score: 1

Around the USA, it is sometimes illegal to use do-it-yourself kits (bought in other jurisdictions) for wills, real property sales, simple uncontested divorces, etc.
1. Re:Full employment for lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Citation needed. Who told you that, a lawyer?
2. Re:Full employment for lawyers by mysidia · 2016-02-20 10:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  it is sometimes illegal to use do-it-yourself kits
  No... it is NOT unlawful to use them. However, the results of using the kits, might not be as intended, due to the differences in the law, and the ways some jurisdictions will interpret the templated materials.
  It is possible, for example, that your template Will might not work as it is supposed to, or might not meet requirements for enforceability on certain intended parts of the document in a jurisdiction the document was not designed for.
Lawyers likely aren't losing that much here by damn_registrars · 2016-02-20 09:26 · Score: 2

I doubt that many parking tickets are contested with lawyers either way. The robot is taking jobs that the lawyers weren't getting.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Lawyers likely aren't losing that much here by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  The robot is taking potential income from human-looking lawyers. Everyone knows potential income is worth more than real income.
2. Re:Lawyers likely aren't losing that much here by im_thatoneguy · 2016-02-20 10:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, his website lets you choose from one of several forms which it then emails. This is a "robot lawyer" like my kindle is a "robot author" since I can call up different stories depending on what I want to read.
  It's a handy website I'm sure. But usually my parking tickets are more complicated, like "I applied for a zone renewal 3 times but your system still hasn't sent me my sticker. I called the parking office and they said our neighborhood had a backlog and therefore shouldn't be enforced for expired tags."
  I still didn't need a "lawyer" I just had to explain my situation in 4-5 sentences and email it off.
3. Re:Lawyers likely aren't losing that much here by JazzLad · 2016-02-22 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not using RIAA math ...
  
  --
  "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
The future by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 09:30 · Score: 0

...it has taxes in it.
Robot, lawyer? who cares?? -it will need to be certified and taxed.
Death and taxes my friend, death and taxes.
Document preparation services by tepples · 2016-02-20 09:36 · Score: 1

I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing that if this bot launched in the USA, it'd be classified similarly to LegalZoom and other document preparation services, not to mention individual income tax preparation services such as TurboTax and H&R Block At Home.
Google ... by PPH · 2016-02-20 09:36 · Score: 2

... is getting into this business as well. They have programmed an autonomous vehicle to follow ambulances.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Unauthorized Practice of Law (USA) by JesseEnjaian · 2016-02-20 09:51 · Score: 1

http://www.americanbar.org/gro... It's also illegal in California: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-... A problem with computerizing government is that they make the rules. Idk how English government works, but in the US tickets are issued by a county government who also prosecutes unauthorized legal practice cases. I'm sure any county would miss $3m.
1. Re:Unauthorized Practice of Law (USA) by mark-t · 2016-02-20 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's only applicable if one claims that one is an actual professional legal practitioner. although any so-called legal advice that does not come from someone who practices law professionally certainly may be suspect, it is not by any means illegal.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
2. Re:Unauthorized Practice of Law (USA) by KGIII · 2016-02-20 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure that I can not only give you legal advice but I can practice it on your behalf. I'm also reasonably certain that I can charge for that service so long as I make it clear that I am not actually a lawyer. I have actually not just given legal advice to friends, I've gone in and represented them in a court of law, spoken with the DA on their behalf, and even arranged a plea agreement, twice, on behalf of a friend. All of which is perfectly legal - though I've never charged for the service. I believe I can charge for it so long as I do not portray myself as a lawyer or do the few things that are strictly within the purview of those who have passed the bar.
  Due to a long story, I am even a notary public. So, I can do some of it. I am not a lawyer. I've never actually charged money for my help and I am not skilled enough to do so. But, if it's something simple and you're just going to be pleading guilty then you don't really need much. 'Snot hard, really.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
3. Re:Unauthorized Practice of Law (USA) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone using such an automatic system is in fact representing themselves. As long as the automatic system isn't required to act as a legal person there shouldn't be any problems.
4. Re:Unauthorized Practice of Law (USA) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Your links are worthless.
  They apply to unauthorized practice of law by persons, e.g. "No person shall practice law in California unless the person
  is an active member of the State Bar.".
  Similarly, a lawyer is a person, so the ABA link is meaningless.
  Computer software is not a person.
  Further, you clearly do not understand what is meant by the phrase "practice of law", and hence do not understand how and when it can be "unauthorized".
Robot? by WoOS · 2016-02-20 10:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

Since when are Chat-Bots Ro-Bots? Did I miss something about ELIZA being the first femal robot?
Technology as an enabler by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:06 · Score: 0

People who think lawyers will be replaced by AI (sooner than teachers, programmers, etc.) don't understand the limitations of AI and amount of unique personal interaction required when doing things other than paperwork.
1. Re:Technology as an enabler by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Lawyers will not be replaced anytime soon, but there's plenty of people doing paperwork which can be standardized away
Re:They can't disqualify it by dywolf · 2016-02-20 10:10 · Score: 2

no thats not entrapment.
but what you wrote is ignorance.
and as long as language is a thing, regardless of its level of complexity, lawyers will be needed.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
A dose of worm medication for the justice system. by dsmatthews9379 · 2016-02-20 10:34 · Score: 1

Brilliant, and about time those parasites got put in their place because most of what they do a machine could do better.
How long until... by craigminah · 2016-02-20 10:36 · Score: 1

How long until the President invites him to the White House?
1. Re: How long until... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Never. He isn't muslim.
2. Re: How long until... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 12:13 · Score: 0
  
  Also it does not look like a bomb
3. Re:How long until... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  Do you mean the Prime Minister, moron?
Robot?? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 10:38 · Score: 0

How is this a robot? The guy wrote a script that fills out some appeal form. I don't see anything in the story that would even require basic machine learning.
1. Re:Robot?? by craigminah · 2016-02-21 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  You'll think differently when it takes over the world and enslaves us all...
eternal vigilance is my duty by Noah+Haders · 2016-02-20 10:47 · Score: 1

A world with less lawers is a nicer world.
*fewer.
1. Re:eternal vigilance is my duty by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome late to the discussion.
  
  How did you not notice people saying the exact same thing hours before you did?
Re:They can't disqualify it by mark-t · 2016-02-20 10:48 · Score: 2

Actualy, you shouldn't need a lawyer ever.

Except when you do, of course.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Thoughts On Ticketing by ytene · 2016-02-20 10:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Unsurprisingly there are a lot of comments already concerning the implications of this web site to the role of a lawyer, but maybe there is an even more important aspect here. The "success rate" statistics would seem to imply that the issuance of parking tickets in the UK is significantly more aggressive than it should be. Now this could be for a number of reasons [under-qualified ticket wardens, poor quality signs, or, perhaps, inappropriate guidance given regarding when to issue. Non-UK readers may like to know that the UK has a long and very tempestuous relationship with parking supervision; until relatively recently landowners could either clamp parked cars or have an "agent" do it for them; sadly the number of these agencies that were cowboys and scammers caused outrage and fortunately the practice was banned... When I worked in local government ~ 20 years ago, we adjusted the total price of parking tickets and fines to ensure that we recovered the cost of maintaining the car parks, providing security lighting and CCTV, collecting litter, etc, but nothing else. The car parks were basically zero-profit, cost-recovery exercises. Since then, however, government funding has changed massively, and the issue of parking tickets could well [sorry, not entirely sure either way] be a lucrative source of income for some. The success of this web site may have less to do with the need for legal skills than the likely dubious grounds under which a ticket was issued in the first place. Now what would be really interesting would be if Joshua Browder [the site developer] could pull some statistics from the site that could show which locations had the most over-turned tickets. If there were patterns in *that* data, then there might be grounds to take a closer look at the issuing agency in an attempt to put things right. Let's hope that he considers doing just that...
My wife got a speeding ticket last year. by mark_reh · 2016-02-20 11:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

One of her coworkers (a surgeon) gave her the name of a lawyer and suggested calling him. She did just to see how they could possibly get her out of a speeding ticket. The lawyer said that the speeding ticket will be negotiated down to a non-moving violation such as improper parking. She would have to pay the full fine for the speeding ticket plus the lawyer's fee, but it wouldn't affect her insurance rates or add points to her license.
She went along to see if it would work and sure enough, the ticket was negotiated down and she paid the fine and lawyer's fee- IRIC the lawyer charged $150. No points, no increase in insurance rates.
My wife finished her anesthesiology residency just a few years ago, so life as 1%ers is pretty new to us. This event was a real eye opener. I guess this is how the 1% gets away with murder. I can't imagine what it's like to be a 0.1%er.
1. Re:My wife got a speeding ticket last year. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  You act like this is some exclusive club that only rich people have access to. Do a search for "traffic ticket lawyers" and you'll find a ton of services that will do the same thing. I got a speeding ticket in college while I was working part time and found a lawyer to do the same thing for only $50. Sometimes there are lawyers who do this for free just to get their name out there.
  If anything you got fleeced. Stop trying to make this into some social commentary on special treatment of "le 1%" because it really doesn't apply here. Maybe you should tell dr. lead foot to stop breaking the law.
2. Re:My wife got a speeding ticket last year. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 18:03 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure if GP is in the 1% club for being able to afford $150 extra just to avoid points and any added insurance costs but it does point out a significant difference between those who can afford it and those who can't.
  Many people faced with such a choice would say they couldn't afford that $150 (or even $50) extra. They may not even be able to afford time off of work to show up in court.
  Being poor in the US can be very expensive. Or to quote a line from a movie "Free to those who can afford it, very expensive to those who can't."
  This is why some people argue that a fine system that takes into account net worth and/or income and issues a higher fine for those who can afford it is more fair. (You'll find such schemes in some European countries).
  I've dealt with 2 speeding tickets in the past 10 years. The first one was issued by a county LEO and I had a choice of just mailing in the fine and accepting a few points or showing up in court to try to fight it at the risk of an increased fine and even more points if I lost (not to mention court costs). I just mailed the fine in. There was a huge disincentive for me to question the ticket.
  The other one was issued by a national park ranger. That would be a federal speeding ticket. I talked to the US Attorney who would be handling my case to see if I could just take defensive driving in lieu of paying the fine and having it affect my driving record. I'm sure the US Attorney has much better things to do than mess with a measly speeding ticket in a national park and agreed - I would just have to show proof that I took the course.
  I'm not sure it was really worth the trouble - even the online course I took was a royal pain in the ass and of course cost at least half as much as the fine and then I had to drive an hour each way AND pay for parking to show up in Federal Farking Court to show proof that I passed the course.
  If I had a job that I couldn't afford to miss, there's no way that would have made sense for me to do.
  I also once had a fine reduced to the absolute minimum ($15 as opposed to about $100) just by showing up in court and talking to the prosecutor before things got started, but of course I also had to spend time going to court and paying for parking downtown - when I should have been at work.
Subsidy Trough by stu72 · 2016-02-20 12:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Parking tickets are not a "trough"
Driving is one of the most heavily subsidized personal actions in the world.
Parking fees and fines are a very very small tip of the balance back toward something remotely resembling a level playing field. Just pay for your parking and if you screw up, pay the fine and move on. You're still tens of thousands of dollars ahead of whe you would be if you actually have to pay for all that infrastructure, hit to mention the war and the pollution.
1. Re:Subsidy Trough by Snotnose · 2016-02-20 13:24 · Score: 2
  
  Not this shit again. I pay taxes on top of taxes. License fees, registration fees, gas tax, sales tax, income tax, excise tax, etc etc etc.
  
  One thing these taxes pay for are the roads I use to get to work, and the parking I use to do my shopping. If I neither earn nor spend money then maybe we're in your idea of nirvana, but not mine.
2. Re:Subsidy Trough by Trailer+Trash · 2016-02-20 13:35 · Score: 2
  
  Parking tickets are not a "trough"
  Driving is one of the most heavily subsidized personal actions in the world.
  Parking fees and fines are a very very small tip of the balance back toward something remotely resembling a level playing field. Just pay for your parking and if you screw up, pay the fine and move on. You're still tens of thousands of dollars ahead of whe you would be if you actually have to pay for all that infrastructure, hit to mention the war and the pollution.
  Let me guess: you didn't build that? Amiright?
  Sigh. Look, every time you buy something it was shipped over these heavily subsidized roads. You are very seriously ahead of where you would be if you had to "pay for all that infrastructure" every time you buy something.
  There are some things that benefit everybody in society - like roads - so it makes sense that we pay for those collectively.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
3. Re:Subsidy Trough by jaa101 · 2016-02-20 13:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not this shit again. I pay taxes on top of taxes. License fees, registration fees, gas tax, sales tax, income tax, excise tax, etc etc etc.
  One thing these taxes pay for are the roads I use to get to work, and the parking I use to do my shopping. If I neither earn nor spend money then maybe we're in your idea of nirvana, but not mine.
  The issue is, are the taxes fair. If the roads are paid for out of income tax then people who take the train to work are being ripped off. Alternatively, if fuel taxes, registration and licence fess and parking and traffic fines are paying for schools and hospitals then motorist are being ripped off. How this works varies widely around the world.
4. Re: Subsidy Trough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 17:17 · Score: 0
  
  Sigh. 30,000+ Americans dead every year. Sigh. The greatest source of pollution in the world. Sigh. A dependency on oil so great that a person (albeit obviously an idiot) can't even imagine any other possible methods of transport. Sigh.
  Im sure glad we have you to tell us what benefits everyone!
5. Re: Subsidy Trough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  "Im sure".
  Idiot, you say?
6. Re:Subsidy Trough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 20:14 · Score: 0
  
  If the roads are paid for out of income tax then people who take the train to work are being ripped off.
  Unless you live on an island, everything you own has been on a road in part or whole. Everyone uses roads directly or indirectly whether they know it or not.
Five items or less by TapeCutter · 2016-02-20 13:03 · Score: 1

Stephen Fry

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
1. Re:Five items or less by jklovanc · 2016-02-22 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Mr. Fry is eloquent yet very far off on the motivations and the thoughts of many so-call pedants. We pedants are not all alike. I, for one, have no problem with verbing nouns. That would be a use for a current word for an action that has not before existed. I have no issue with "friending" as that means to publicly designate someone as a friend in social media. It is a new action and we may as well use a the most appropriate word to describe it.
  What I have issue with is incorrect use of language when it is just as easy to use the correct term. I have an invisible disorder called Asperger syndrome. One of the aspects can be best described as follows; "We can handle the unexpected well but we have trouble with the other than expected. My best way to describe it is in the case of a driving on a one way street. If a child runs out from behind a car that it unexpected and I can deal with it. If I see a car coming at me that is other than expected and can freak me out. When I am reading something and I notice a miss-uses word I automatically stop reading and start analyzing the sentence. It is correct? Have I made the same mistake? Is the writer doing this for a reason? The main point is that it is not a choice for me. It just happens. What Mr. Fry attributes as a need to feel superior is more of a need to be able to stay reading without stumbling over poor grammar.
If it gets bad enough by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 14:34 · Score: 0

If it gets bad enough, they will just make it illegal to represent your self.
prime directives by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 15:18 · Score: 0

1. Serve the public trust.
2. Protect the innocent.
3. Uphold the law.
Told Ya So! by JimSadler · 2016-02-20 15:42 · Score: 1

Many people believe that only low- skilled workers will be replaced by machines. Doctors and lawyers being put out of work should be an eye opener for what is quickly heading our way. Yet absolutely no one is speaking about steps to alter society to accommodate the replacement of human workers. The old notions about retraining are obviously a joke. What is a doctor or lawyer supposed to retrain to do? Management positions are also in great danger.
Robot Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 16:21 · Score: 0

85% of lawyers have no good background in science and engineering. I have. i took a para legal course and under the family law, I was able to replace 48 pages of legal statements(descriptive0, by one fully loaded flowchart. We tested it with over 100 cases and it showed the right solution. My friend is a lawyer and he validate it. I had generated over 100 templates in MS Word (sorry, that is what they use), and a data base to answer questions and based on it to select the right legal brief form where just replace the variable names by actual names. Every thing is done completely correctly. I have submitted most of them trough my lawyer to appropriate court and none had been rejected. The point it, most lawyers do not draft any thing, their para legal do the bull work. So, this robotic lawyer is in the right step. All intellectual laws should be routed through AI based legal learning systems and the mystery is removed. Tons of money and time can be saved. This boy is in the right direction and get a senior , trustworthy law student to help you.
1. Re:Robot Lawyer by david_thornley · 2016-02-22 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Robots can take the place of paralegals in many cases, and the place of lawyers in others.
  What I won't get out of the robot is professional judgment. I'll get a procedure that is probably correct for most cases, which is often enough. For more serious things (like my current criminal charge), I'm going to want someone who knows what's correct for my particular case.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Robot Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 16:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sorry - Here is a corrected version :
85% of lawyers have no good background in science and engineering. I took a para legal course and under the family law, I was able to replace 48 pages of legal statements(descriptive), by one fully loaded flowchart. We tested it with over 100 cases and it showed the right solution. My friend is a lawyer and he validate it. I had generated over 100 templates in MS Word (sorry, that is what they use), and a data base to answer questions and based on it to select the right legal brief form where just replace the variable names by actual party names. Every thing is done completely correctly. I have submitted most of them trough my lawyer to appropriate court and none had been rejected. The point it, most lawyers do not draft any thing, their para legal do the bull work. So, this robotic lawyer is in the right step. All intellectual laws should be routed through AI based legal learning systems and the mystery is removed. Tons of money and time can be saved. This boy is in the right direction and get a senior , trustworthy law student to help you
Oblig. Bttf by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 17:39 · Score: 0

The Justice system moves quickly since the abolishment of lawyers
Lawyers by Etherwalk · 2016-02-20 18:06 · Score: 1

A world with less lawers is a nicer world.
A world with fewer lawyers is one where lawyers are more expensive.
Expertise is expensive. The bigger problem isn't lawyers as a whole, it's a combination of (1) major needed reforms in the legal system, and (2) the lawyers who are especially big assholes.
The second problem is especially hard to solve.
Re:They can't disqualify it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 18:12 · Score: 0

The other AC was saying that you shouldn't ever need a lawyer, in an ideal world with ideal laws, not that you won't ever need one.
Maybe we can't ever actually reach that ideal, but we should strive for it. At the very least, it should be possible for a person to read the entire body of law in a reasonable time-frame...
So... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-20 19:33 · Score: 0

With this bot, you can get whatever parking tickets you want, and appeal and not have to pay with very little effort? Gone are the days of putting coins in the meters! easier to get the ticket and appeal it!
Bot will encourage more people to break traffic laws that can easily gotten out of just by appealing. Or the police will stop enforcing parking/speeding tickets.
Cute that the article thinks driver-less cars will be all over the road in the future.
Don't call it a robot lawyer! by XNormal · 2016-02-20 21:34 · Score: 1

Sheesh, It's just machine-assisted pro se.
Do you want to get this banned?

--
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
try parking legally by Cederic · 2016-02-20 22:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Although it's reasonable to appeal parking tickets, and a 40% success rate suggests far too many bullshit ones are being issued, there's something else in the article that hasn't been discussed:
He's 19 and he's received 30 parking tickets since he passed his test.
In the UK that means he's getting at least 10 parking tickets per year. I'm averaging less than one per decade. The issue isn't the parking rules or enforcement, the issue is that this guy is quite clearly some form of total cunt.
Learn to fucking park.
Praise Sweet Robo Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 00:30 · Score: 0

Robo Jesus send your robo lawyers to deliver us from the iniquities of the flesh lawyers!
The legal system is lawyer rent seeker by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 00:36 · Score: 0

The politicians are almost all lawyers... judges are all lawyers... the complexities of the legal system is lawyers rent seeking... the same with the tax code and accountants.
Voting morons - you've fucking failed.
Why disqualify them? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 02:26 · Score: 0

To me it's like paying a bill. Sure, you can write a check, fill out your check book, walk to the end of the drive way and put the envelope in the mailbox. Then on the other end there is somebody getting paid to open the envelope, read the check, pay it to your account so on and so forth. Or, you can go to the website and select auto pay and it does it for you, for free.
When are we going to disqualify automatic bill pay?
We should use this for DMCA threats by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 03:10 · Score: 0

Bots send out the threats why not have bots battle it?
Wo hires a lawyer to contest a parking ticket? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-21 04:01 · Score: 0

Isn't that a bit overkill in the first place?
Poor success rate... by evilviper · 2016-02-21 06:25 · Score: 1

Nobody seems to be mentioning that the success rate is not good at all...

more than 86,000 people have used it to appeal against council parking fines. Nearly 40 per cent of them were successful, according to a poll of the site's users.
A success rate of just over 1/3rd is nothing to be proud of, particularly if you assume a bigger percentage of people using the site were contesting the ticket precisely because they were actually innocent. Only if you assume the majority of users of the site are actually guilty, does that look acceptable.
So lawyers can still easily sell their services... merely trumpeting that they have a far better success rate, and their services will cost less than your increased insurance rates due to the citation lingering on your record.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
1. Re:Poor success rate... by david_thornley · 2016-02-22 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  To know if 40% was a good rate or a bad rate, we'd need more context. How many people appeal? What is the usual rate? How many people did indeed park illegally but thought it would be worth an appeal anyway? AFAICT, people don't generally contest parking tickets.
  My insurance company doesn't care about parking tickets. They do care about moving vehicle violations and accidents involving more than $500 or $1000 or something like that. The cost to me of a parking ticket is the amount listed on the ticket as what I have to pay, no more.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A software bot is not a robot by Nunya666 · 2016-02-21 13:57 · Score: 0

I guess /. can't afford competent technical writers.
Expand it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-22 04:27 · Score: 0

Now make one that deals with getting me a better cable internet deal.
We'll just keep the judges by Bill_FFR · 2016-02-22 05:53 · Score: 1

Judges are just thief lawyer whores with robes.
1. Re:We'll just keep the judges by Alumoi · 2016-02-22 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  It may be so, but if only 3 people were left in the world and 2 of them have a quarrel, the third must act as a judge.
Re:They can't disqualify it by david_thornley · 2016-02-22 06:55 · Score: 1

Things I have consulted lawyers over: getting a divorce, consultation as to what was going to happen in a multi-car accident that our car was involved in due to a woman whose marijuana had apparently not made her drive more cautiously, trying to remedy an injustice someone else caused for me, dealing with a criminal charge against me based on mistaken identity and another factor that's downright stupid-sounding.
The common factor in a lot of this is getting things done right. I wanted to get the divorce over and done with and on terms reasonably fair to me. I wanted to see if I'd likely have to do anything to protect us in any litigation on the car crash. I wanted to get that injustice remedied. I'd really like the criminal charge currently against me to be dismissed; failing that, I want to be acquitted.
I can read and understand the laws just fine. They're all available online, and the language is, while dry, pretty clear. They're a lot easier reading than the C++ standard. I can come up with good legal arguments, according to some paralegals I've talked to.
However, I typically have one shot to get things done right in legal cases. I can't screw up, find it out in testing, and correct it before it reaches production. If I get it wrong initially, I may have serious problems. That's why it's worth hiring an expert. What I stand to lose in my current criminal case, should my side screw up, is considerably greater than what my attorney is charging me.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes