home logo Similartool.AI
Homeright arrowAI Newsright arrowai-on-trial-the-case-against-a-robotic-lawyer

AI on Trial: The Case Against a Robotic Lawyer

By Melon One     Updated Mar 5, 2024

In an extraordinary legal battle, the boundaries of artificial intelligence are put to the test as a robotic lawyer faces a lawsuit for unauthorized practice of law in the USA. Let's dive into the matter.

1. DoNotPay: A Robotic Champion of Justice?

DoNotPay burst onto the scene with a promise to challenge corporations, conquer bureaucracy, and empower individuals to sue at the click of a button – all without the hefty price tag of a human lawyer.

Founded by Joshua Browder, its mission was simple yet revolutionary: utilize AI to demystify and navigate the legal system for those who might otherwise be intimidated or unable to afford traditional legal avenues.

Despite its noble aspirations, the legal system has pushed back – law firm Edelson contends that practicing law requires human judgment, empathy, and, crucially, a valid license – none of which an AI, including DoNotPay, possesses.

2. Legal Limits: The Crux of the Lawsuit

At the heart of the lawsuit lies the accusation of unauthorized legal practice. Edelson's charge underscores a foundational principle: the law is sacred and exclusive to those duly educated, trained, and licensed.

Jonathan Faridian's disappointment in DoNotPay's services, citing 'substandard and poorly done work,' illustrates the practical limitations and potential pitfalls of relying entirely on artificial intelligence for legal affairs.

This confrontation spotlights the broader debate surrounding AI's encroachment into professions traditionally reserved for humans, challenging us to reconsider the essence of expertise and the uninfringeable human touch in various vocations.

3. Public Perplexity and Legal Landmarks

The public response oscillates between fascination with AI's potential to democratize legal services and concern over the quality and authenticity of its counsel.

Legal aficionados point out that this case could set a significant precedent for the future of AI in professional fields, calling into question where the line between technology-assisted service and independent legal practice should be drawn.

Others empathize with the plight of those who, unable to afford traditional legal services, find hope in AI alternatives like DoNotPay, heralding a need for regulatory innovation that accommodates technological advancement while safeguarding professional integrity.


DoNotPay, known as the world's first robotic lawyer, finds itself under legal scrutiny. A prominent law firm, Edelson, challenges its operation without a law license, alleging it's neither a lawyer nor controlled by any. Adding fuel to the fire, a displeased client voices concerns over the quality of service rendered. This scenario raises profound questions about AI's role and limitations in the legal profession.