Goto

Collaborating Authors

An Affordable legal advisor of future for everyone!!

#artificialintelligence

An academic and a lawyer have teamed up to develop a robot lawyer, which, if successful, will make legal advice affordable to people from all backgrounds, while revolutionizing the legal sector. Robots could take on significant parts of a lawyer's work, reducing the costs and barriers to access to legal services for everyone, rather than just those who can afford the high costs. The project, at the University of Bradford, is initially working on a machine learning-based application to provide immigration-related legal advice, but if successful, it could be replicated across the legal sector. The project was devised by Yash Dubal, immigration lawyer and director at AY&J, and Dhaval Thakker, associate professor at the faculty of engineering and informatics at the University of Bradford. It will harness complex knowledge graph technology and deep learning algorithms to analyse case law and learn from it.


"People fix things. Tech doesn't fix things." – TechCrunch

#artificialintelligence

Veena Dubal is an unlikely star in the tech world. A scholar of labor practices regarding the taxi and ride-hailing industries and an Associate Professor at San Francisco's U.C. Hastings College of the Law, her work on the ethics of the gig economy has been covered by the New York Times, NBC News, New York Magazine, and other publications. She's been in public dialogue with Naomi Klein and other famous authors, and penned a prominent op-ed on facial recognition tech in San Francisco -- all while winning awards for her contributions to legal scholarship in her area of specialization, labor and employment law. At the annual symposium of the AI Now Institute, an interdisciplinary research center at New York University, Dubal was a featured speaker. The symposium is the largest annual public gathering of the NYU-affiliated research group that examines AI's social implications.


'People fix things. Tech doesn't fix things.' – TechCrunch

#artificialintelligence

Veena Dubal is an unlikely star in the tech world. A scholar of labor practices regarding the taxi and ride-hailing industries and an Associate Professor at San Francisco's U.C. Hastings College of the Law, her work on the ethics of the gig economy has been covered by the New York Times, NBC News, New York Magazine, and other publications. She's been in public dialogue with Naomi Klein and other famous authors, and penned a prominent op-ed on facial recognition tech in San Francisco -- all while winning awards for her contributions to legal scholarship in her area of specialization, labor and employment law. At the annual symposium of the AI Now Institute, an interdisciplinary research center at New York University, Dubal was a featured speaker. The symposium is the largest annual public gathering of the NYU-affiliated research group that examines AI's social implications.


Compliance and the robot lawyer: What happens when it all goes wrong? - Legal Cheek

#artificialintelligence

Developments in technology over the past few years have revolutionised the way consumers operate, and this is starting to have some pretty interesting effects on the legal industry. A particularly exciting technological development is the emergence of online access to free legal help. One free help site which holds immense potential to transform the legal industry is the site created by a 19 year-old student called Joshua Browder. The site helps to advise claimants on a range of low-level legal issues such as reclaiming Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), seeking compensation for flight delays and fighting parking tickets. This differs from other online legal advice sites such as AskALawyer and Lawyers Online because instead of relying on real life legal professionals to provide advice to site users, Browder's site uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to advise potential claimants.


AI automation starts to transform legal profession

#artificialintelligence

In Pyrrho Investments v MWB Business Exchange, Master Paul Matthews of the Chancery division supported the use of software in scoring documents for relevance. He found there was no evidence that software would be less accurate than manual review and keyword searches. He added that software could provide greater consistency in searching more than 3 million documents that could be involved in the disclosure. A final reason was that both sides had agreed to the use of the software, which would be much cheaper than a manual search – they just wanted the court's approval. However, in May, the High Court went further when two undisclosed parties disagreed on whether predictive coding software should be used.