If a robot can analyze mountains of caselaw in seconds, couldn't it also make the best legal arguments for a client? After all, AI already predicts markets, creates art, and writes music all the time. That's the premise put forth by the website DoNotPay, which typically uses its bots to fight traffic tickets and cancel unwanted subscriptions. But their latest marketing stunt is offering $1 million to anyone who would let their AI argue a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

To help us understand if that's even possible, Paul Singer returns to 2G1P to discuss the ethics of bringing an AI into a courtroom. He's a partner at the firm Kelley Drye & Warren LLP and a former Texas deputy attorney general, and has spent much of his career focused on consumer protection with regard to emerging technologies. Paul, Alli and Lindsey discuss the philosophical implications of employing AI tools in the practice of law, and whether lawyers are at risk of losing work to bots in the foreseeable future.

Support 2G1P on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/2G1P

Join the 2G1P Discord community: http://discord.gg/2g1p

Join the 2G1P Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2girls1podcast/

Email us: 2G1Podcast@gmail.com

Call the show and leave a message! (347) 871-6548

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

242 Could (Should?) an AI Lawyer Argue in the Supreme Court?