I agree there is an opportunity for disruption.
Actually I think that’s where it may fall down because most, if not all, of those cases are behind paywalls which shouldn’t be subject to crawlers…
This is like watching an avalanche happening right above you on the slope…
5 Likes
There have been attempts to break the monopolies over the years. None of them have been worth a damn. Accurate and complete research is a lawyer’s most important tool. Probably more important then a brain.
The monopolies have a system in place to gather every opinion issued by any court in the US, from state trial level on up to the US Supreme Court. When I was a federal law clerk back in the dark ages, we had a bin in the Clerk’s office where each chambers would put their unpublished opinions. At the end of each day, both Lexis and Westlaw would have have someone collect them. Thus, the databases had not only the published opinions of the Court but the unpublished ones as well. This has greatly expanded the base of decisions from which a lawyer may argue (with limitations of course, since unpublished decisions are not precedental). None of the start-up competitors could compete and have fallen by the wayside over the years.
All of this may change eventually, since most of our Courts are online. All decisions, published or not, are in the system. So are all of the briefs ever filed. Sooner or later, someone will design a reliable way to gather up those cases and impose a rational method of accessing the infomration. Yes, term searching in Lexis is byzantine, but for lawyers who know how to use it, it is spot-on.
One more thing: price. That has been another place where start-ups have been unable to compete. With their century old systems and contacts, the monopolies have been able to adapt to the growth of technology in the field of legal research. They have adapted so well, that they can offer a small firm like mine a package of all state and federal decisions, all statutes and regulations and all legal publications quoted in a Court’s decision for roughly $250 per month subscription. There have been at least a dozen would be competitors destroyed by those economics, including law books themselves, which cost thousands a month to keep updated. I haven’t opened a law book in decades, other than to take publicity shots for the practice.
5 Likes
Just listening to the Senate hearing about this.
It was just proposed that litigation rather than regulation be used to prevent harm from AI…
Music to a trial lawyer’s ears. Add that to my recommendation to young lawyers to specialize in intellectual property and internet issues. AI is going to be like a bull in a china shop.
1 Like
Indeed.
But companies would just move the bulk of their AI work to jurisdictions that wouldn’t let people sue them left, right, and centre.
The statutes that have been passed, at least in the US, dealing with the internet and tech, (like the digital milenium act) have provided for a universal forum. No matter where the harm or the company is located, a case can be venued in any district, for no reason other than the plaintiff wanted to file it there. Jurisdiction over the defendant is nearly universal as well. So, you can be forced to defend a case in Watertown, New York for a post you made in San Diego, even though you never intended any harm in New York or directed your message specifically to that region or made your comments about a local resident. If you are harmed by AI, it’s going to be difficult for the tortfeasor to hide, other than through the more typical insolvency and bankruptcy efforts.
3 Likes
Yes, but US law does not apply outside the US.
Just as with taxes, if pushed too far, companies will move elsewhere with only token presence in the jurisdictions they disagree with.
1 Like
I love these kinds of anecdotes. They really paint a quaint picture of the profession of yesterday; where an innocent procedure like this, leads to a snowballing advantage and unstoppable monopolies of today.
You guys are such a treasure mine of information. I honestly think you guys would so great as guest lecturers at law schools for the young lawyers of today.
You’re kind. I do that from time to time. Almost didn’t get invited back when in answer to the “work/life balance” question I told a group of 2nd year students:
“If you’re in law school because somebody in your family wants you to be, you’re waiting on the job market to improve, you think the pay is easy money, or you just don’t know what else to do - do the rest of us a favor and drop out now. This profession is more difficult because of whiners who ‘didn’t sign up for’ long hours and stressful situations. Be in law school because you’re passionate about the material, because you want to help others, and/or because you relish the idea of solving problems, testing your wits and mettle in the crucible of the courtroom, and won’t rest until you’ve taken care of your client’s business.”
3 Likes
Great speech. I just get, “who’s the old fart”?
2 Likes
Oh yes. Lots of that.
2 Likes
This thread should be bookmarked by all because at this moment each the posters are correct:
@Bronsky - a great summary of the monopoly that is Westlaw/LexisNexis.
@Marty - great questions and focus on the key issues
@Bishop - best advice I’ve heard since the first day of law school orientation when Dean “Ernie” Smith of the University of Texas Law School invited us to shake the hand of the student on our left, then our right, and then said “Now say good bye because one of the three of you will not be here second semester.”
@Tams - best quote of the day: “But companies would just move the bulk of their AI work to jurisdictions that wouldn’t let people sue them left, right, and centre.” because that is what will happen - offshore AI stealing the Web data blindly and spitting out volumes of analysis and garbage at the same time…
3 Likes
Don’t know much about the subject matter but the description of the use of AI sounds like total nonsense to me (licks his chops thinking about all the outstanding tuition bills that will be paid off by AI litigation). Would love to cross-examine the researcher who filed the grant to “hopefully pinpoint the cause of Alzheimer’s disease.” Hopefully? I could do that with divining rods!
Researchers use AI to understand Alzheimer’s disease, identify drug targets (msn.com)
1 Like
I’ve actually seen something about this. I understand government agencies that have access to patient healthcare data (Medicare, VA, others) are being paid by big pharma to data-mine for patterns around patient demographics and effects/side-effects of particular medications as an adjunct for/primer to start human trials of new uses for existing chemicals.
Remember, Rogaine (minoxidil) was originally a blood pressure medicine. Regrowing hair was an unexpected side-effect. It took a lot of anecdotal reporting to convince UpJohn to remarket it.
Whether it’s truly “AI” or not, they’re trying to find the next several dozen Rogaines.
1 Like
When the H did I give ANY government agency authorization to sell my healthcare information - anonymous or otherwise? Is this like OSHA and HIPPA does not apply to them? Didn’t I see this in Armageddon…
Now, the, uh, drilling unit’s
a prototype we’ve been building
for the Mars project.
You, uh–
you might recognize the rig.
Yeah, well, l guess l should
recognize it. lt’s my design.
What’d you do?
Steal a key to the patent office?
Yeah, basically.
Let me get this straight.
l got pulled off an oil rig,
flown halfway around the world
because you stole my drill design…
couldn’t read the plans right
and did a p i s s-poor job
of putting it together, is that it?
Well, technically,
patents don’t apply to outer space.
I never knew that.
Sorry - that was a line from the movie - should have labelled the actors…
Agreed that it’s probably not AI (at least what I would think of as AI). I do see the advantage of bringing Watson-like capability to the masses.