Law Student writes a book on AI for law students.

Just a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of chatting with Kyle Brookover, an innovative 2nd-year law student at Ole Miss who has authored a game-changing book for his peers. In this captivating read, he reveals how to harness the power of ChatGPT for efficient learning and studying. Our lively conversation became a podcast that you can check out below.

As a legal professor with a passion for teaching entrepreneurship to law students, Kyle's trailblazing journey resonates deeply with me.

I'm always inspired by students who challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of what's possible. Once they've glimpsed the world of entrepreneurship, there's no going back—their perspectives are forever transformed.

Ok, time to dig in!

A special Hello 👋 to my NEW SUBSCRIBERS! 
To read previous posts, go here.

Today we will:

1. dig into AI’s potential to improve self-representation in courts

2. provide a reader submitted use case and prompt

3. learn how a law student wrote a book on AI

4. stop OpenAI from using our chat sessions to train itself

5. share how a 72-year is learning about AI

6. listen in on Microsoft’s earning call from today

Limiting Self-Representation Once Again

A review and response to the recently released paper, “Why Can't I Have a Robot Lawyer? Limits on the Right to Appear Pro Se”

In a world where rights often take center stage, the right to self-representation in courts remains shrouded in limitations and skepticism. Delving deep into the enigmatic realm of pro se litigation, this groundbreaking article unravels the complex web of historical constraints that have chiseled away at the essence of self-representation. I learned (or re-relearned so much) in reading this.

As we stand on the cusp of an AI-driven legal revolution, the burning question emerges: can technology breathe new life into this misunderstood and often under-nurtured right, or will it succumb to the same pitfalls that have plagued it for centuries?

Through an exploration of the past, present, and future of self-representation, this paper offers a fresh perspective on how courts should navigate the uncharted waters of AI-assisted pro se litigants.

🚨But here is the thing . . . I completely disagree with the author’s focus and premise.

Before we get to that; here are some of the key takeaways from the paper:

• Legal services gap: Low-income Americans unable to obtain legal help for 92% of civil legal problems, with middle class also struggling.

• Existing tools: LegalZoom, Nolo Press, and other non-lawyer services have attempted to address the justice gap.

• AI potential: AI products can help close the legal services gap but may face hostility from the legal profession.

• Courts' role: They should evaluate AI products based on their utility and quality in providing assistance to pro se litigants.

• Current AI limitations: AI can pass law school exams but has flaws like fabrication of sources and "hallucination" of facts, which may cause harm.

• Vetting AI products: Courts should only allow pro se litigants to use AI products if they are vetted and their use is disclosed to the court.

• Disclosure requirement: This would help courts determine the appropriate level of leniency and assistance for self-represented litigants.

• Proposed solution: Prohibit AI use until its value is assured, require disclosure of AI use, and adjust judicial benevolence based on litigant's sophistication.

This is all worthy of knowing and considering to be sure.

Now onto my response.

With complete respect for the author of the paper mentioned earlier, I think it's great and important for us to consider multiple perspectives, including this one, to have a well-rounded and friendly discussion.

🌳⛰️In the quest to reimagine self-representation through the prism of AI, we may be missing the forest for the trees.

The very fact that pro se litigants need assistance in the first-place lays bare the uncomfortable truth: our justice system is designed for lawyers, not for the citizens it purports to serve. Draped in the guise of democratic access, the legal system remains an exclusive club that zealously guards its secrets from the uninitiated.

Rather than focusing on the narrow lens of AI's impact on pro se litigants, we should be harnessing the power of technology to dismantle the ivory towers and build a truly accessible justice system. In a world where AI can revolutionize industries and empower individuals, isn't it time we used it to transform the courts from within, rather than merely policing the fringes of self-representation?

Here are my points:

1. 🏛️🤯The legal system's complexity is the issue, not AI: The fact that pro se litigants struggle to navigate the legal system points to its inherent complexity and inaccessibility. Instead of focusing on AI's role in helping litigants, efforts should be directed toward simplifying the legal system to make it more user-friendly for all citizens.

2. 🎓⚖️Legal education should be democratized: The legal system's complexity stems from a lack of widespread legal education. Rather than controlling how citizens use AI to represent themselves, resources should be allocated to making legal education more accessible and understandable for the general public.

3. 🔓👥The justice system should prioritize accessibility: The legal system should be restructured to prioritize accessibility and inclusivity, making it easier for citizens to engage with and understand the law. This would reduce the need for AI assistance for pro se litigants and create a more democratic legal system.

4. 💼🤝Legal professionals should be more accessible: The fact that pro se litigants need AI assistance highlights the inaccessibility of legal professionals. Efforts should be made to increase the availability of affordable legal services, reducing the reliance on AI and other tools to bridge the justice gap.

5. 🚧🔻Legal system reform should focus on reducing barriers: Instead of debating the use of AI by pro se litigants, the focus should be on identifying and dismantling systemic barriers that prevent citizens from effectively representing themselves in court.

6. 🤖💼AI should be used to streamline the legal system: Rather than focusing on the potential risks and limitations of AI for pro se litigants, attention should be directed toward leveraging AI to improve the efficiency and fairness of the justice system itself. This could include automating routine tasks, simplifying legal language, and making the court process more user-friendly.

7. ☮️🗣️Encourage alternative dispute resolution methods: The need for AI assistance for pro se litigants could be reduced by promoting alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation and arbitration. These methods are often more accessible and less adversarial, making them more suitable for citizens without legal expertise.

8. 🏫🌐DIY law schools: Related to #2 above, but with a twist. Encourage community-driven, open-source law schools to foster grassroots legal education and promote a broader understanding of the legal system, making it accessible to everyone, regardless of their background or resources.

To foster a truly inclusive legal system, it's essential that we move beyond aspirations and take decisive action. Here are two concrete steps to begin with:

1. Implement AI-driven legal simplification: Collaborate with legal experts and technologists to develop AI tools that streamline and simplify legal language, making it more comprehensible for the general public. These tools can help transform legal documents, procedures, and even courtroom processes into a more user-friendly experience for everyone involved.

2. Invest in accessible legal education initiatives: Develop and fund programs aimed at providing accessible and affordable legal education to a wider audience. This could include free or low-cost online courses, community-driven workshops, or open-source law schools, ensuring that a broader understanding of the legal system is attainable for all, regardless of socioeconomic background.

By focusing on these initial steps, we can pave the way for a more accessible and equitable justice system that empowers citizens to confidently engage with the law.

Use Case Reader Submitted Prompt

I love it when readers reach out to me. More of you have been lately.

This one hit my inbox this morning and I asked if I could share it.

This shows the power of personas (something I have covered before). When I was reading the prompt, my gut was that there would be no way it worked. Doug is giving ChatGPT a combination or roles and tasks. But if you look at the response he got, you can see that it worked to some degree.

With some fine-tuning, which Doug admits he hasn't done yet, this could evolve into a wonderful scenario-based prompt.

Josh:

I am one of your subscribers. I was toying around with ChatGPT-4 trying to make a little objections role-play game:

▶︎▶︎PROMPT

Let's practice responding to objections. I am the lawyer conducting direct examination of the defendant on the witness stand in a civil trial in California regarding an alleged breach of contract. You play three separate roles. First, you are the plaintiff's lawyer and must object when I ask an objectionable question. Second, separate from your role as plaintiff's lawyer, you are the judge, and will rule on objections. If I ask an objectionable question, as the plaintiff's lawyer you will assert an objection and state the basis (such as hearsay). I will then respond to the objection. You, acting as the judge, will then either sustain the objection or overrule the objection. Once you have made a ruling as the judge, you will assume your third role as the witness, and provide a response to my question. After you respond to my question, I will then ask my next question to the witness, and we will continue playing as described. Please respond if you understand. Once you respond that you understand, I will begin by asking my first question of the witness.

That's all I told it. See how that played out: https://sharegpt.com/c/cFzwGtt

It worked pretty well, given that I didn't spend time trying to fine-tune it any further.

Just thought I'd share it, in case someone else might want to build on it.

Doug Lytle

Lawyer in San Diego

Law Student AI Book: 

As noted above, here is the podcast (20mins) of Kyle Brookover and me talking about his journey into AI and writing the book.

This is a great chat and it begins with a story of a lawyer getting fired from his firm of using ChatGPT.

For more on Kyle and his adventures, follow him on Twitter at @lawschoolai

🚨Just today, he released the latest beta of the app he is building based on the book 👇

News you can Use: 

OpenAI introduces new ways to control how they use your data and what you can do with it.

Respect for this OG going back to school

Rep. Don Beyer, a 72-year-old Democrat from Virginia, is following in the footsteps of Rodney Dangerfield's character in the classic movie "Back to School" by pursuing a graduate degree in machine learning at George Mason University. Just like Dangerfield's character, Beyer is balancing his responsibilities as a lawmaker with his academic pursuits. Eager to better understand the rapidly evolving technology of AI, Beyer is proving that it's never too late to go "Back to School" and expand one's knowledge.

He is motivated by the potential for AI to help address scientific problems in various fields by analyzing vast amounts of data. While Beyer acknowledges the possible disadvantages of AI, such as job elimination, he hopes to identify and address these issues through policymaking.

Beyer's pursuit of a degree in AI demonstrates the importance of maintaining a learner mindset, even as technology evolves and one's career progresses.

Its the beginning of "a new era of computing"

Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) shares surged by as much as 5% in after-hours trading as the software giant reported fiscal third-quarter results that surpassed expectations and suggested growing strength in its AI and cloud businesses.

That's a wrap for today. Stay thirsty & see ya next time! If you want more, be sure to follow me on Twitter and LinkedIn.

DISCLAIMER: None of this is legal advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not legal advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any legal decisions. Please /be careful and do your own research.