Top Law Schools

partners who can't figure out outlook are going to use law watson?

Bad link

smaug wrote:Bad link

QED

Law Watson may be better at me in every single aspect of practicing law, but can it give the partner the satisfaction of making someone cry on a routine basis? I didn't think so.

this is gonna turn out like HFT. people are going to start writing motions specifically targeted to fool the law watson algorithm. one day the law watson network will go haywire and voluntarily dismiss every federal suit.

Honestly law Watson could probably replace 75% of my partners just as easily as it could replace me. They could raise salaries to $190k easily without lowering PPP.

That's a good thing for people reading this here today, right?

This is why we NEED Trump. He'd build a wall and keep those thieving, raping, murdering Law Watson's out of our country. AND he'd make Law Watsico pay for the wall.

Desert Fox wrote:

Ajren Robben wrote:That's a good thing for people reading this here today, right?

Law Watson will probably just be a better version of Westlaw and Lexis. In that respect, it can't come quick enough. I didn't have to open up Westlaw for so long I forgot my password. But I got brutally pwnd by research requests the last two days. I'd love to ask Watson.

Feel free to forward some of that my way. I'll take you on as a pro bono.

ive been actively trying to replace my own paralegal with document automation.
this one is easy, but i need to start writing some YAML/Markdown type shit.
I think automation is the key to freedom from the traditional law firm model, not something to worry about.

Desert Fox wrote:

Ajren Robben wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Ajren Robben wrote:That's a good thing for people reading this here today, right?

Law Watson will probably just be a better version of Westlaw and Lexis. In that respect, it can't come quick enough. I didn't have to open up Westlaw for so long I forgot my password. But I got brutally pwnd by research requests the last two days. I'd love to ask Watson.

Feel free to forward some of that my way. I'll take you on as a pro bono.

Does work product privilege cover materials created in anticipation of litigation by wholly owned subsidiary that you haven't created yet. Need by 8pm EDT. tanks

I need answer choices from A to D to help you.

Ajren Robben wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Ajren Robben wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Ajren Robben wrote:That's a good thing for people reading this here today, right?

Law Watson will probably just be a better version of Westlaw and Lexis. In that respect, it can't come quick enough. I didn't have to open up Westlaw for so long I forgot my password. But I got brutally pwnd by research requests the last two days. I'd love to ask Watson.

Feel free to forward some of that my way. I'll take you on as a pro bono.

Does work product privilege cover materials created in anticipation of litigation by wholly owned subsidiary that you haven't created yet. Need by 8pm EDT. tanks

I need answer choices from A to D to help you.

I laughed way too hard at this

a) Was hoping that this was going to be insight into DF's relationship with his wife
b) What this implies is that 35% of boomer partners believe that they're immortal

yep why im on that PAYE

pancakes3 wrote:a) Was hoping that this was going to be insight into DF's relationship with his wife
b) What this implies is that 35% of boomer partners believe that they're immortal

why should they care if there is no one knows how to lawyer after they die?

anyriotgirl wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:a) Was hoping that this was going to be insight into DF's relationship with his wife
b) What this implies is that 35% of boomer partners believe that they're immortal

why should they care if there is no one knows how to lawyer after they die?

Does preftige not carry into the afterlife? (I don't understand preftige. Just here for the models and bottles).

lacrossebrother wrote:ive been actively trying to replace my own paralegal with document automation.
this one is easy, but i need to start writing some YAML/Markdown type shit.

Code: Select all

from fpdf import FPDF
from PyPDF2 import PdfFileMerger, PdfFileReader
import glob
exhibits = glob.glob("*.pdf")
newpdfs = []
allpdfs = []

for exhibit in exhibits:
    exhibit_num = exhibit[:-4]
    cover_pg_name = "0" + exhibit_num + ".pdf"
    pdf=FPDF(format='letter', unit='in')
    pdf.add_page()
    pdf.set_font('Courier','B',20)
    pdf.set_xy(4.25, 4.5)
    pdf.cell(0,0, exhibit_num, "C")
    pdf.output(cover_pg_name,'F')
    newpdfs.append(cover_pg_name)

i=0
while i < len(newpdfs):
    allpdfs.append(newpdfs[i])
    allpdfs.append(exhibits[i])
    i = i +1

merger = PdfFileMerger()
for pdf in allpdfs:
    merger.append(PdfFileReader(file(pdf, 'rb')))
merger.write("exhibit binder.pdf")

I think automation is the key to freedom from the traditional law firm model, not something to worry about.

Are they going to start teaching Python for Lawyers? Meaningful whitespace might be too much to handle.

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."

Anonymous User wrote:http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/ ... -a-machine

acc anon

Pleasye wrote: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.