‘No place in court for robot lawyers’, says Law Council

The president of the Law Council of Australia has condemned the use of AI-operated lawyers in the courtroom, saying the ‘sound judgment’ of human beings could not be easily replaced by technology.

There are moves in the US to allow the world’s first automated defence lawyer to front a court..

The president of the Law Council of Australia has condemned the use of AI-operated lawyers in the courtroom, saying the “sound judgment” of human beings could not be easily replaced by technology, despite moves in the US to allow the world’s first automated defence lawyer to front a court.

Luke Murphy said lawyers would not and could not be replaced by robots in the near future, as practising lawyers were “subject to rigorous professional and ethical obligations”.

“There would be significant challenges in considering how these processes and obligations could apply to AI lawyers,” he said. “Sophisticated AI tools offer potential opportunities to support the legal profession in undertaking various administrative tasks. However, lawyers are especially relied upon for their sound judgment – the extent to which AI can replicate this acumen remains to be seen.”

Law Council of Australia president Luke Murphy. Picture: Brad Fleet

Mr Murphy’s comments come despite a push from US company DoNotPay to allow the first robot lawyer to appear in court.

Founder Josh Browder said the use of his software to defend citizens in minor cases was well overdue, and could help carry the burden of hefty legal costs.

“Lawyers are charging hundreds of dollars an hour for copying and pasting a few documents,” he said. “Our vision at DoNotPay is to make the law free so the average person shouldn’t have to worry about paying all this money to get access to their basic rights.”

Currently functioning as a chatbot, customers can ask DoNotPay for legal advice to get out of parking tickets. At last count, Mr Browder, 26, said he had helped overturn 190,000 tickets.

DoNotPay founder Josh Browder says the use of his AI software to defend citizens in minor legal cases is well overdue.

Yet his vision spans greater than a chatroom. In February, Mr Browder launched an attempt to get the first AI lawyer to appear in a courtroom. “For a speeding ticket, a user would go into the courtroom, have these bone induction glasses which are basically like an AirPods version of glasses, and AI would whisper in their ear telling them exactly what to say,” he said.

Mr Browder’s proposition was met with pushback from the legal industry. The Californian State Bar Association told him his proposition was illegal, and could put him in jail for up to six months if he proceeded.

Mr Murphy agreed there was a place for AI in the legal profession but said it must be handled with “extreme care”.

“How AI is incorporated into legal practice will be a vital area of focus in the coming years, and may even play a role in creating opportunities for increased access to justice,” he said.

“Where these tools are utilised by lawyers, this must be done with extreme care. Lawyers must always keep front of mind their professional and ethical obligations to the court and to their clients.

“How these tools interact with our overarching duties as lawyers remains an important issue with which the profession is currently grappling.”

Technology use in Australian courts is currently limited to live-streamed hearings, Mr Murphy said, which while they help minimise costly legal fees still come with their own challenges.

“Shifts towards online proceedings – especially electronic court lodgements and interlocutory matters – and potential reduction in time spent on admin­istrative or labour-intensive tasks are seen as having a positive impact overall in terms of time and cost efficiencies to legal practitioners and their clients,” he said.

“Reliance on online hearings and virtual transactions can have drawbacks in some instances, and not all legal proceedings or corporate interactions will be suited to attendance by audiovisual technology … online proceedings may benefit some … but for others, a shift online could limit or even prevent access to justice.”