Do robot attorney eliminate the need for law licenses, for human judges, and make access-to-justice super easy and economical?

I wrote on this blog about a robot "hired" to practice law in a U.S. law firm in May of 2016.

Now, two more law firms reportedly started the use of robots in their law practice.


So, as of now, robots are used in law firms for the following "jobs":


The artificial intelligence system used so far is ROSS, made by IBM.

ROSS, reportedly, "can understand your questions, and respond with a hypothesis backed by references and citations".

As a litmus test, if a human being without a law license "understands your questions and responds with a hypothesis backed by references and citations", such a human being is chargeable with a felony unauthorized practice of law.

ROSS also, reportedly, "improves on legal research by providing you with only the most highly relevant answers rather than thousands of results you would need to sift through."

In other words, ROSS makes a determination INSTEAD of a human being, as to what is most relevant to your case when doing research.

Legal research and making such judgment calls during legal research is considered the practice of law, prohibited to anybody but licensed attorneys.

In this case, it is clear that the attorney is not supervising ROSS in how the legal research is done, ROSS is making the decision INSTEAD of the attorney, to "save time" for the attorney, so that the attorney should not "sift through" "thousands of results".

"Additionally, [ROSS] is constantly monitoring current litigation so that it can notify you about recent court decisions that may affect your case, and it will continue to learn from experience, gaining more knowledge and operating more quickly, the more you interact with it."

ROSS is reportedly doing its job better and faster with "experience" and interaction. 

It was also reported in May of 2016 that "other law firms" also signed a license with ROSS

At least two other law firms were already reported as using ROSS:

No.	Name of Law Firm	Name of Robot/Name of Manufacturer	Activity that can be handled by the robot	Is the activity subject to unauthorized practice of law prosecution? Y/N	States and federal courts where the firm is practicing
1	Baker & Hostetler	ROSS/IBM	·        Legal Research/judgment calls on relevancy of cases found; ·        Case analysis/outcome prediction; ·        Monitoring litigation, prompts about new cases and laws that may affect outcome of the case	Yes	All states, all federal jurisdictions
2	Latham & Watkins	ROSS/IBM	Same	Yes	All states, all federal jurisdictions
3	von Briesen & Roper	ROSS/IBM	Same	Yes	Milwaukee, Wisconsin

So, since May of 2016, and increasingly so, the practice of law in the United States is delegated to robots.

Because, if a robot makes a decision which case in the case law the robot found is relevant to a certain case, and the lawyer discards all other cases and goes only with the cases that the robot considered relevant, that is a substitution of the judgment of a lawyer by the "judgment" of a robot.

And, functions that ROSS is carrying out are functions routinely charged as unauthorized practice of law.

Of course, if Baker & Hostetler, Latham Watkins and von Brisen & Roper are using a machine that will allow to make decisions instead of a lawyer based on lightning-speed analysis of information and conjuring up case hypotheticals and case outcomes, other law firms are at a competitive disadvantage.

Since ROSS license is, no doubt, super-expensive, we can soon expect licensing pools to use ROSS collectively.

Moreover, what ROSS ACTUALLY can or cannot do is commercial secret.

So, unlike an attorney who, before licensing, must undergo a background check and a character review, the machine that replaces the judgment of a laywer, may not undergo any "checks" because what it can or cannot do is a patented commercial secret.

Owned by IBM.

And IBM - through stocks - is owned by a lot of judges.

So, please tell me, what is the remaining legal basis for state and federal courts to continue attorney licensing if robots can practice without supervision and instead making decisions INSTEAD OF attorneys?

And, I repeat the question I asked in my previous "robot-related" blog, if the robot can assess cases, review the applicable law faster than any human can, pick relevant cases and apply them to the hypotheticals in front of the court, why not replace ALL of the state and federal judiciary with just one ROSS?

Won't it be super-economical and eliminate judicial corruption into the bargain?

And, won't ROSS, if purchased for public use by the government with free or low-fee access for every citizen and legal resident of this country eliminate the "access to justice" gap by engaging in legal consultations and providing information needed by litigants?

Because - ROSS can do legal research and choose the most relevant cases in the thousands of cases decided across the country by various courts, right?

And can do it for the public.

ROSS can generate hypotheticals based on the specific facts of the case and predict case outcomes based on the law.

And can do it for the public.

Making lawyers in the long run not necessary?

Should we as taxpayers give it a try?

Imagine, you have a problem.

Instead of going to a lawyer, you use your ROSS-subscription subsidized by the government (at your expense as a taxpayer), enter a question into the ROSS-consulting terminal, and get an answer as to how your case, most likely, will be decided by a ROSS-judge, based on the law and facts of your case.

The only problem then will be how to find employment to all suddenly unemployed lawyers and judges.

But that is a happy problem, isn't it?

And, lawyers, who call themselves "intellectual elite", can be then easily re-educated in the professions that are in demand and under-represented in the market.

Case solved?