Re: Henry VI, Part 2!
I'm the IT manager for a law firm, and that is a straw man argument....
You should have yourself checked for lawyeritis.
You make a point about the complexity of wills. But given that there are a series of laws, rules and precedents that dictate how inheritance will work by default, and what is permissible to achieve a client chosen outcome, then we don't need AI, we just need a moderately complex algorithm. Relying on the memory of a human to fully understand the complexity of inheritance law when writing wills is Victorian. A computer can resolve these problems that are (at heart) just very basic algebra far faster, far better. You need people who really understand the law to write the algorithm, but you don't need that "personal touch" that's used to justify often outrageous fees.
In a subsequent post you make the point that if you pay more and your lawyer knows the process, things can be done very efficiently. But why should ALL conveyancing not be done quickly and efficiently? Given that customers are already paying a hell of a lot for something barely above administration, why should they have to pay even more for an adequate service? I have worked for a major law firm (on KM and business development), and in my view the sector is rankly inefficient, the major law firms pad their invoices something chronic, they charge full rate to recycle work they've done and been paid for before, and their commercial objectives are often diametrically opposed to that of their clients. And that seems to hold true for the top ten law firm I worked for right down to high street lawyers writing will, doing conveyancing. I suspect probate, divorce law services and the like are similarly poor value for customers, but luckily I've not had the need to find out.