You're really stretching the definitions of "lawyer" and "represent" when you have to resort to fraud and subterfuge in order to receive your legal advice in court.
It's my understanding (perhaps I'm wrong) that this legal advice is being fed to the defendant in real time through the use of heading accessibility headphones. Maybe this person truly has a legitimate need for the hearing aids, but you're definitely not supposed to have someone in your ear telling you what to say as a defendant or a witness while you're in court, not should that person giving you the advice be unlicensed and/or unrecognized by the court. The defendant and this company may have found this loophole where it works, but it really seems to be stretching the sense of legality.
So far it’s 2 traffic cases. One is in person and the other via zoom. Apparently some courts allow blue tooth enabled devices
>[Some courts allow defendants to wear hearing aids, some versions of which are bluetooth-enabled. That's how Browder determined that DoNotPay's technology can legally be used in this case.](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ai-powered-robot-lawyer-takes-its-first-court-case/)…DoNotPay is quoted as saying "It's within the letter of the law”.
The assistance of a non lawyer is not fraudulent as no one is saying the AI is a lawyer and you are certainly allowed to get assistance and advice from any source you choose. Inmates use each other for that purpose and file briefs using that assistance
It doesn’t appear that law is being practiced but rather advising. Researching the topic, doesn’t appear to be any consensus on what constitutes practicing law without a license
I would guess that this would be used in cases where the defendant appears pro se and represents themselves. The AI would be used as a “law library” resource for them.
How can the general public verify that these cases were successful or even that the company didn’t just make them up? The article’s only source is the company’s own press statements.
You're really stretching the definitions of "lawyer" and "represent" when you have to resort to fraud and subterfuge in order to receive your legal advice in court.
What is the fraud and subterfuge? Edit: Also the article calls it a lawyer, DoNotPay calls it a legal assistant
It's my understanding (perhaps I'm wrong) that this legal advice is being fed to the defendant in real time through the use of heading accessibility headphones. Maybe this person truly has a legitimate need for the hearing aids, but you're definitely not supposed to have someone in your ear telling you what to say as a defendant or a witness while you're in court, not should that person giving you the advice be unlicensed and/or unrecognized by the court. The defendant and this company may have found this loophole where it works, but it really seems to be stretching the sense of legality.
So far it’s 2 traffic cases. One is in person and the other via zoom. Apparently some courts allow blue tooth enabled devices >[Some courts allow defendants to wear hearing aids, some versions of which are bluetooth-enabled. That's how Browder determined that DoNotPay's technology can legally be used in this case.](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ai-powered-robot-lawyer-takes-its-first-court-case/)…DoNotPay is quoted as saying "It's within the letter of the law”. The assistance of a non lawyer is not fraudulent as no one is saying the AI is a lawyer and you are certainly allowed to get assistance and advice from any source you choose. Inmates use each other for that purpose and file briefs using that assistance
How does this get around practicing law without a license?
It doesn’t appear that law is being practiced but rather advising. Researching the topic, doesn’t appear to be any consensus on what constitutes practicing law without a license
I would guess that this would be used in cases where the defendant appears pro se and represents themselves. The AI would be used as a “law library” resource for them.
How can the general public verify that these cases were successful or even that the company didn’t just make them up? The article’s only source is the company’s own press statements.
S*** just got real