You gotta read this post by Adam Unikowsky, a top Supreme Court advocate, who discusses whether AI can perform well at a Supreme Court oral argument. His conclusions:
- Yes, a robot lawyer would be an above-average Supreme Court advocate.
- The DoNotPay people weren’t ambitious enough. You don’t need to have a human read back what the robot lawyer says. You can have an actual robot lawyer.
- Courts should permit robot lawyers at oral arguments and shouldn’t discourage this practice.
- If there’s any aspect of a lawyer’s job where AI is likely to shine relative to humans, it’s oral argument. Oral argument should be the first, not the last, frontier of AI-assisted legal practice.
You can also listen to Adam's oral argument versus Claude's argument in the post itself. Incredible.
2 comments:
Big Law may not be pleased with this AI trend if it affects profits, which are doing pretty good now, according to David Lat: "The 2025 Am Law 200 rankings are based on 2024 financial performance—and last year, the Second Hundred did quite well for themselves, based on multiple metrics:
Total revenue: $27.8 billion, up 10.9 percent.
Revenue per lawyer (RPL): $849,860, up 8.6 percent.
Profits per equity partner (PPEP): $1.1 million, up 12.6 percent.
Total headcount: 32,703, up 2.1 percent."
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/2025-am-law-200-second-100-law-firms-profits-per-equity-partner-ppep-revenue-per-lawyer-rpl-in-2024
The Fla bar should be passing rules now to prevent this type of thing happening. If a pro say plaintiff for defendant wants to use AI to assist them in preparation or in drafting, I should be able to do so. But machines should not take the place of people in court, if we go down that road, we will next have AI jurors and judges.
Post a Comment