CONTRIBUTED BY SIMON TABJI
INTRODUCTION:
It is no longer news that by February 2023, the world’s first robot lawyer will defend a traffic ticket case accused in a United States of America’s courtroom. Technology, which has permeated almost every aspect of our today’s world, is taking a new turn in the legal profession with the introduction of artificial intelligence, which will almost replace the most traditional practice of the legal profession which is litigation.
The legal profession is one of the most conservative professions of our world today which does not flexibly admit changes of all sorts without careful recourse to the various body of laws regulating the profession.
This article presents a legal perspective of the use of such artificial intelligence sought to be introduced into the profession by drawing references from the Nigerian body of laws that regulate the practice of the profession, which is almost the same as other sister jurisdictions of the commonwealth countries.
DISCOURSE:
Technology has brought about enormous advancements in the legal profession, from simplified methods of research to easier ways of filing Court processes, to advanced means of communication among lawyers and law firms.
The impact of technology has continued to be felt up until this day. However, technology with all of its benevolence, does not take effect on the legal profession at a carte-blanche. There are various rules aimed at its application and operation in the profession. For example, the introduction of E-mail did not take away the traditional practice of service of Court processes until provisions were made for substituted means of service by the various rules of practice of Courts.
This is the case with the robot lawyer and this article presents a check on its permissibility in the legal profession.
WHAT IS THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE ROBOT?
The robot otherwise known as artificial intelligence was invented by the DoNotPay Inc., empowered with the ability to listen to adverse arguments in Court and advice the litigants on how to respond via an earpiece.
DOES THE LEGAL PROFESSION ADMIT TO THE USE OF ROBOT LAWYERS?
The legal profession does not admit to the legal representation of litigants in Court whether to advice on what to say or advocate in real sense without some qualifications. This is to prevent unauthorised practice of law.[1]
For any individual or robot of any kind to be able to be given the right of an audience in Courts as a lawyer, he must satisfy the following conditions.[2]
- He is a citizen of Nigeria.
- He produces a qualifying certificate to the benchers showing that he has attended the Nigerian law school, and has met all the requirements to be called to the bar.
- He has shown to the benchers that he is a person of good character.
- He is not a citizen of Nigeria, but has produced the qualifying certificate and has shown to the benchers that he is a person of good character.
- The body of benchers shall then issue him a Certificate of Call to Bar.
From the foregoing provisions of the legal Practitioners Act,[3] the operative word has been a person in real human form, belonging to a nation as its citizen, not an artificial intelligence aimed at copying the real person. It shows that a robot lawyer cannot be used in the practice of law to defend any litigants in a Court of law.
The words used from the Act are clear and the Courts have been of the attitude of giving words their literal meaning where they are clear and unambiguous.[4] Arguably, if a robot should be allowed to represent litigants in Court as a lawyer, then he must be called to the Bar.
Comparatively, admission to Bar in the United States of America is that an individual must earn a juris doctor, pass law school approved by the jurisdiction and pass Bar examination administered by the regulatory authority of that jurisdiction, pass a professional responsibility examination and pass a character and fitness evaluation.
Locus standi, the Latin maxim which means the place of standing in Court is the right of a person to appear in Court. It usually arises where an individual has a cause of action or interest which if proven will entitle the defendant to the relief sought. This right solely lies with the Plaintiff or the Prosecution as the case may be, it is sometimes shared among litigants having the same interest, and it can be delegated to the legal practitioner of one’s choice.[5] Aside from these, no other has a place of standing in the Court, (to advice or suggest), save for the trial judge, the witnesses and in the case of the U.S.A, the jury. In light of this, where does one place the robot lawyer? A judge, a litigant whose interest is being affected, a lawyer who has been delegated by the litigant, or a witness? Nowhere. At best, it’s an interloper, who has no concern, a busy body which the Court frowns at.
Technology, with all of its positive impacts on the legal profession,[6] does not at this moment match the basic requirement for its application as it relates to the use of the robot lawyer to represent litigants in Court.
CONCLUSION:
Conclusively, the importance of technology to the legal profession cannot be overstated. This, however, is not without some certain limits to its application, the legal profession being a discipline based on rules that regulate its practices. It is based on these rules as examined above that this article presents the view that a robot lawyer cannot represent a litigant in Courts.
Key terms: Robot lawyer, the legal profession and technology.
- Rule 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007. ↑
- Section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act ↑
- An Act that makes provision for the admission, discipline and regulation of lawyers. ↑
- General Cotton Mill Limited V. Travellers Palace Hotel (2018) LPELR SC ↑
- Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended ↑
- The use of computers and legal research aid for example Lexisnexis, filling of court processes by mail, etc. ↑
