I am a lawyer, I am not an algorithm

I am a lawyer, I am not an algorithm. This clarification, apparently self-evident, could become a duty in the future for any legal practitioner. Indeed, for those few who will manage to survive the invasion of algorithms. What are we talking about? Of a new generation software which will usher in the era of "predictive" justice: knowing first how a dispute will end, what a judge will decide, in short, where the proverbial scales will hang. So as to save yourself years of boredom, stamped papers, nervous breakdowns and – of course, it goes without saying, and above all – legal fees. With all due respect to the lawyers, in fact, who can perhaps recycle themselves as programmers or maintainers of this fantastic forecast matrix of the chances of "victory".

The new “vehicle” was developed on the initiative of the Court of Appeal of Venice, in collaboration with the Ca 'Foscari University and with the artificial intelligence department of Deloitte and will be presented on February 1st. In the intentions of its creators it should represent a sort of silicon "glass ball" capable of predicting the outcome of a process with amazing (disturbing) precision. At that point, many potential users of the trial system – that is, many people who believe they have been wronged and trust in a recognizable reason – could (should) be discouraged before even starting the battle. With consequent relief for the super work which is said to be overburdened by the magistrates, the chancelleries and the world universe which has the improper task of "doing justice".

Now, without prejudice to the good faith of those who conceived the project, we cannot fail to point out the enormous risks. Especially if we are lawyers and not algorithms. The fundamental risk – or rather, the fundamental error – lies in the reductionist equation between "scientific predictability" and "procedural truth". In the preconceived, and misleading idea that the process is a "matter" capable of being "mathematized" and "geometrized" in rigid, icy, and therefore predictable forms. So, in such "straight lines", that they can be digested by a computer program and returned in the form of an "anticipation" of the next verdict.

However, this vision is antithetical to what the process is: that is to say a rite destined to reduce (without ever succeeding) the gap between the fact and the norm. And, in this titanic retreat, there is an infungible function. And it is a function that can only be performed by a man, never by a machine. Because it requires sensitivity, knowledge, experience, humility and even presumption, to understand that there are so many battles apparently, "predictably", lost that nevertheless deserve to be fought. And hopefully win. Many shades of gray between the white and black of the binary language of a computer.

The history of jurisprudence itself is full of “revirement”, of radical changes, one hundred and eighty degrees, of a jurisprudential orientation that was considered to be granite. Where the software in question would certainly have suggested that you raise your hands in surrender. And the Supreme Court came to those changes because someone believed in them, despite any contrary prediction. And this happened due to (or fault) the unpredictable human grain in the machine. Well, that grain is called advocacy. And every step forward on the road to a more just justice – let's say a further, albeit infinitesimal, adjustment with respect to the dictates of our Supreme Charter – has taken place thanks to "riotous" lawyers. Who have been able to glimpse the opening to revolutionize, perhaps forever, a conviction, as they say, "consolidated"; but wrong.

Among other things, the promoters of this "reform" do not consider the implicit paradox; and that is that the causes will continue to have the same final balance in balance: half will be won and half will be lost. So, however, the fabulous tool (when used by everyone) will go wrong at least fifty percent of the time. But the real point is another. We think – because we are lawyers and not algorithms – that this new judicial "Terminator" foreshadows a very desirable future. But not just for us, mind you.

Of course, this middle ground between a Golem and Cassandra will lead to fewer causes because a potential client will be persuaded (demoralized) by an artificial intelligence. It could result in a "saving" of tasks, of annoyances, ultimately of work for the Courts. It may also imply a reduction in the importance, role, prestige, and earnings, for lawyers. But the applause ends there. Because, it will result – above all and first of all – in a lesser possibility of justice for all.

Francesco Carraro

www.francescocarraro.com

---

---

The article I am a lawyer, I am not an algorithm comes from ScenariEconomici.it .

---

This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/sono-un-avvocato-non-sono-un-algoritmo/ on Sat, 30 Jan 2021 10:02:39 +0000.