DF Thread Forum

[nealric]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

[Ajren Robben]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

lmao

[dixiecupdrinking]

Good luck getting Watson to write all your loser motions, partners.

"ERROR. Error 767: the law does not support your argument. Please choose another argument."

What's gonna be really funny is if the trial-level litigation starts going through algorithmic trial court robots, and the appellate lawyers and judges are the only human beings left, and they have to police the trial system to make sure it's making actual sense. It would be a lot of fun watching judges scratching their heads over Watson's take-no-prisoners approach to legal logic.

It could honestly be an interesting exercise if the software was perfected enough. The dirty secret everyone knows is that the higher courts aren't really "clarifying" legal splits or logical discrepancies; rather, they are inputting their human understanding for how a policy should work, to the extent they can justify it with plausible deniability from existing case law. If the courts ever end up accepting software, the higher courts would be overturning its findings left and right to prevent a shit-storm of totally unintended but probably accurate legal conclusions drawn from terribly written human law.

The only solution is Congress Watson.

[PMan99]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

CR

Partners aren't going to be billing out Law Watson at 400 an hour to do doc review.

[Desert Fox]

[fats provolone]

Law Watsons conflicts checks are gonna be brutal

[nealric]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

CR

Partners aren't going to be billing out Law Watson at 400 an hour to do doc review.

They bill out turds making 20 bucks an hour at 200. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They might try, but we already tell firms we won't pay for associate time in a lot of cases. We won't be paying for Law Watson queries when we have our own subscription to the service.

[fats provolone]

does law watson have malpractice insurance?

[anyriotgirl]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

CR

Partners aren't going to be billing out Law Watson at 400 an hour to do doc review.

They bill out turds making 20 bucks an hour at 200. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They might try, but we already tell firms we won't pay for associate time in a lot of cases. We won't be paying for Law Watson queries when we have our own subscription to the service.

I don't understand what client wants to look at a bill and see only expensive partner time. Sure, push to write off first years, but midlevels?

[rnoodles]

man, this is some haley joel osment shit. not liking it.

[lacrossebrother]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

CR

Partners aren't going to be billing out Law Watson at 400 an hour to do doc review.

They bill out turds making 20 bucks an hour at 200. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They might try, but we already tell firms we won't pay for associate time in a lot of cases. We won't be paying for Law Watson queries when we have our own subscription to the service.

Do you find that you inexplicably get dropped more often than you would anticipate?

[nealric]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

CR

Partners aren't going to be billing out Law Watson at 400 an hour to do doc review.

They bill out turds making 20 bucks an hour at 200. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They might try, but we already tell firms we won't pay for associate time in a lot of cases. We won't be paying for Law Watson queries when we have our own subscription to the service.

I don't understand what client wants to look at a bill and see only expensive partner time. Sure, push to write off first years, but midlevels?

It depends on what we are doing. More and more, in-house departments are doing grunt work in-house and only going outside the company for things we don't have the expertise to handle ourselves. We don't need associate workhorses, we need experts.

If there's a massive doc review to contend with, there is often no choice but to use lots of associate time. But more often, we just need a specific question answered, or someone to look over something we have already done. What we really don't want to see is a partner assigning some midlevel associate billing $600 an hour to spend 20 hours to write up a memo explaining what the partner could have told us over the phone off the top of her head in a 30 minute call.

[nealric]

That's OK, I'm planning on replacing the partners I hire with law watson

CR

Partners aren't going to be billing out Law Watson at 400 an hour to do doc review.

They bill out turds making 20 bucks an hour at 200. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

They might try, but we already tell firms we won't pay for associate time in a lot of cases. We won't be paying for Law Watson queries when we have our own subscription to the service.

Do you find that you inexplicably get dropped more often than you would anticipate?

We tend to use outside counsel that gets with the program pretty quick. Billing expectations are set on the front end, so there's no reason to drop us as a client based on them. Firms are not obligated to take any engagement and they let us know if a billing arrangement won't work for them. I should also clarify that we rarely say "no associate time ever", but take strategies to limit its use.

I'm sure Cravath or Wachtell won't pay ball with a client dictating associate use, but 99% of corporate business doesn't necessitate using that type of firm. If we were merging with another company or facing an incident that could result in the destruction of the company, the calculus would be completely different and cost would be no object. But for day-to-day matters, the V20-100 type firms and boutiques we usually use are generally willing to work with us. There's a lot of competition out there.

[Anonymous User]

Would Law Watson be useful to current JD students?

[fats provolone]

Would Law Watson be useful to current JD students?

(posts Law Watson, anonymously)