A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE ROBOT LAWYER UNDER THE NIGERIAN LEGAL SYSTEM
Author: O. M. Atoyebi S.A.N FCIArb. (U.K.)., Contributor: SIMON TABJI
It is no longer news that by February 2023, the world’s first robot lawyer will defend a traffic ticket case in a United States of America’s courtroom. Technology, has permeated almost every aspect of today’s world, but is taking on a new dimension in the legal profession with the introduction of artificial intelligence.
The legal profession is one of the most conservative professions of our world today and does not easily adapt to change of any nature without careful recourse to the various body of laws regulating the profession.
This article presents a legal perspective on the introduction of artificial intelligence into the legal profession by drawing references from the Nigerian body of laws that regulate the practice of the profession.,.
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 till this day. However, technology with all of its impact, has no effect on the legal profession at a carte-blanche, but rather, is regulated by various guidelines or laws aimed at its application and operation in the profession. For example, the introduction of the use of e-mails as a tool for communication 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 seeks to check its permissibility in the legal profession.
WHAT IS THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE ROBOT?
The robot otherwise known as artificial intelligence was invented by DoNotPay Inc., to provide legal services to the everyday person 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 the legal representation of litigants in Court whether to advice on what to say or advocate in real sense without the required qualifications. This is to prevent unauthorized practice of law.[1] [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] [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] [3] the operative word has been a person in 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 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 the Bar in the United States of America is that an individual must earn a juris doctor, pass law school approved by the jurisdiction, 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 Prosecutor 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] [4] 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] [5] 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.
[1] Rule 3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.
[2] Section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act
[3] An Act that makes provision for the admission, discipline and regulation of lawyers.
[4] General Cotton Mill Limited V. Travellers Palace Hotel (2018) LPELR SC
[5] Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended
[6] The use of computers and legal research aid for example Lexisnexis, filling of court processes by mail, etc.