Reply to post: Re: Henry VI, Part 2!

Shall we have AI judging UK court cases? Top beak ponders the future

Peter2 Silver badge

Re: Henry VI, Part 2!

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.

Oh, have an XKCD:-

My point is that I have written a highly complex algorithm and it fails to work adequately in all but the most basic usage cases as human affairs are simply to complex and individual to deal with this way. 80% of cases are exceptions to the rule, hence why I point out that it only works in practice for very simple cases where you have a relatively young couple.

Having actually done this with due respect I think my experience trumps your opinion that you could do a better job. If you think you can do better than me, then write your own and prove me wrong and we'll join the several thousand other firms paying you license fees to use it.

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.

Everything is done very efficiently. Your on about doing it quickly. Two different things.

If your willing to pay for expedited services to jump the que with search providers etc then information can be provided very quickly to progress things.

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,

All conveyancing is done efficiently in a streamlined way via case management systems these days. If everybody paid more then conveyancing would be done faster. At the moment you can get it done faster by jumping the que to get yours done faster at the expense of other people. Pay more, and the search company can hire more people to do the job faster, to pick one example.

You've heard the old thing of "Price, speed, quality. Pick two."?

In this case quality of legal work is pre picked by the law firm, as skimping on this to earn an extra £25 means they lose £250,000. That leaves you with a choice of Quality & Price, in which case you get a cheap but slow service or Quality & Speed, in which case you get a fast service that's not cheap.

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.

If the work is done on an hourly basis then yes, the firm would have an incentive to take as long doing the work as possible.

What would happen to those incentives you raise if the work was done on a fixed fee basis? Pretty much all work is done in the legal sector is done on a fixed fee basis these days, by the by.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019