thegasman

China probably has the most comprehensive data on its users from a surveillance perspective

It would be interesting to do a find “stablecoin” and replace with “fiat currency” command on this paper to see how it reads

I agree. The law authorizes only the attorney general to crack the whip, and limits that prosecutorial discretion with an blanket affirmative defense. Who wins here?

This is toothless. Without a private cause of action available to the consumer, prosecutorial discretion means offenses will go unpunished based on political winds.

The author justifies his desire to regulate facebook with election outcomes he finds personally unpalatable. (u mad, bro?)

Yes, visceral content has high engagement. But is this really new information?

How can you recommend content regulation without exacerbating the problem?

Getting to the merits is the point but the point is often lost in the game of the process. True statement?

True, but you're assuming that the process and the merits are totally distinct (in fact, my own comment reads that way ;]).

But, as another commenter noted, processes themselves can influence merits (e.g. missing a filing deadline, or enforcing discovery requests).

Many of the issues raised by your comment are the result of civil procedural rules. These rules are not intentionally designed to postpone rulings on the merits, and instead were built on historical understandings of how a dispute should be fairly addressed: 1) communicate problem to adverse party 2) adverse party responds 3) fact-finding 4) written arguments aimed at resolution 5) trial by judge/peers (if necessary).

I don't believe that moving #4 (or even #5) earlier in the process maximizes the possibility of a logically/legally sound conclusion, which IMO, is the purpose of the justice system. Then again, your comment has identified speed as a priority, not a thorough examination of the merits.

If the procedural rules don't offend you, then we might just be talking about expensive lawyers. Not all lawyers are expensive.

I don't fully understand what you're insinuating. Could you explain?

This is clever!

I see at least one flaw, though: what if the two sides disagree about the amount of money that should be contributed to the fund?

^This happens routinely

We do not have equal access to our judicial system in the United States.

I agree, but I think we can be more specific.

Criminals (or those accused of a crime) are constitutionally guaranteed an attorney. Civil plaintiffs/defendants, by contrast, have no such right. The anecdotes and experiences of HN users overwhelmingly describe the civil side of things.

Civil lawsuits, IMO, should carry no guarantee of counsel at the constitutional level. Imagine if they did: free lawyers mean frivolous lawsuits and over-burdened courts. But, I don't think anyone is actually clamoring for such an arrangement.

So, specifically, how can we more efficiently allocate limited legal resources to ensure that the average civil litigant is not disadvantaged by a wealth disparity with his opponent?

Well, what's the perceived disadvantage to a resource-poor litigant? What's the perceived advantage to a resource-rich litigant? Good facts make good cases much more frequently than good lawyers make good cases.

Note the paper's definition of medical error: "Medical error has been defined as an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome,3 the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (an error of execution), the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (an error of planning),4 or a deviation from the process of care that may or may not cause harm to the patient."

That's quite broad

Corporations are people. They are taxed like people, they break laws like people, and they own property like people.

They just can't vote.

This isn't a strong argument to me. Student debt might not be collateralized the same way mortgages are (i.e. there's no house to repossess), but student debt is still an asset on a bank's book. If anything, student debt default seems to me more troublesome, as defaulted debt without collateral is more damaging to a balance sheet than debt with collateral.

so how do I make money from this?

Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence, including the video you're describing

Most contracts provide for attorneys fees to be paid by the losing party. I much prefer the "pay your own way unless otherwise agreed" method to the English rule.

Beyond the contractual method of handling attorneys fees, civil procedure rules deal with this situation: if a settlement offer of X is rejected, and the rejecting party ultimately wins an award of X-1, then they have to pay all of your legal fees. [0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_of_judgment

This seems overly broad. Can you explain where you got this information, or in what context you think it applies? As an attorney with litigation experience, this is extremely puzzling.

All lawsuits are different, and simply being named as a defendant does not trigger any enormous payments beyond a lawyer's retainer. I suppose huge cases can call for such a retainer, but those surely are exceptional.

I don't think the government and guild protections are fictions. This article seems to be relevant:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/21/lawyer-disrupt-thyself/

I don't think they're fictions insofar as lawyers (and laws) command a unique place in our society that other industry inputs don't. Insofar as lawyers have the ability and the incentive to prevent sweeping changes to their industry, the guild mentality seems very real to me.

I take your point though: smaller firms are very willing to make technology changes to find themselves new competitive advantages. Here's hoping smaller firms like yours (and mine) keep nipping away at those monstrous firms =D. FWIW, I have not had positive experiences when dealing with them...

Our firm automates document assembly software for wills, trusts, purchase agreements, residential leases, and court forms.

We do some litigation, but in our small town it typically doesn't require extensive electronic discovery or document analysis that this post talks about.

I guess I should have explained more what I meant by "justice." In your quoted language, I intended it to mean justice as handed down by a person in a black robe.

Clients are already lapping up automated legal services (wills, contracts, etc.). But I don't think they're willing to accept a judgment from an opaque black box. Indeed, the cost to receive a judgment does tangentially involve some automatable processes, and those costs will come down as our computers get smarter.

To extrapolate a bit: as long as humans are determining legal outcomes, there will be human advocates. There will be human judges for as long as we have a Constitution.

You're right that analyzing overlapping areas of law might also lend itself to an AI's strength. I guess I meant that applying those overlapping concepts to achieve a certain real world result seems to require input from someone with real world experience, and an empathetic side to fully understand the client's goals.

Lawyer here. I do not know how soon AI will achieve either the humanity or know-how to replace lawyers, but will offer a few observations as a practitioner.

As for the know-how: Processing and comprehending legal texts does not seem to be an insurmountable technological task. However, the breadth of legal practice areas (family law, IP, criminal law, administrative law, etc.), and how these several areas often overlap to influence our daily lives seems a much more complex task.

As for the human element: legal problems are frequently extremely personal and require an empathetic response. This is so at the lawyer-client level, as well as the lawyer-lawyer level. After all, most legal issues require navigating complex relationships between humans, or groups of them. I don't think our society is ready for automated justice at this point. My clients certainly aren't.

So, it seems the human component isn't immediately threatened by AI, while the technical know-how might benefit those with deeper pockets and access to the "better" AI. Practically speaking though, the deep pocketed clients already have armies of lawyers at their disposal. With that in mind, the technical advances are likely to benefit smaller practitioners and clients (like me) who have limited resources.

I fully expect to be practicing law in 2030. If all the lawyer jobs are fully automated by then, I'll have MUCH more to worry about.

"we're going to have to rise up against our evil government!"

This stance, and your criticism of it, miss the mark. In my view, legitimizing private gun ownership should not be based on whose are bigger, or "who would win in a fight" arguments. Instead, private gun ownership is a simple question of property rights. I see private gun ownership having much more to do with the right for you to defend your private property. In this context, I'm in favor of private gun rights, even if taken as a symbolic gesture to the importance of private property.

No mention of MF Doom? Metalface? Doom? Victor Vaughan? (All the same gentleman from LA)